Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, 1905 and 1924," presented by Captain Crookshank; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (MOTOR CAR INDUSTRY).

Mr. HALES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received information as to the proposed establishment of a German automobile factory in Bombay with an estimated output of 15,000 motor cars and 1,000 motor omnibuses annually; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to obtain further information on the subject?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have seen a Press report, but have no further information. The Government of India will be asked for a report.

Mr. HALES: Will the hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity of getting the required information having regard to its serious effect on British motor cars?

Mr. BUTLER: I have said that we will seek the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (ARMAMENTS).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the manufacture of aeroplane parts and shells in Switzerland for delivery in Germany?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOLIVIA AND PARAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).

Sir A. KNOX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which countries were represented by the members of the Advisory Chaco Committee of the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: The Advisory Committee consists of representatives of all the States on the Council of the League, together with representatives of China, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, the Irish Free State, Peru, Portugal, Sweden, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Sir A. KNOX: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the Advisory Chaco Committee recommended that the arms embargo should be lifted in favour of Bolivia and enforced against Paraguay?

Mr. EDEN: The grounds for the Advisory Committee's recommendation are set out in the Committee's report of the 16th January last, and, as this is a document of some length, I am sending a copy to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it true that the embargo has been lifted in favour of Bolivia and left in the case of Paraguay?

Mr. EDEN: I believe that that is so.

Sir A. KNOX: Is not that unfair in view of the fact that the population of Paraguay is only one-third that of Bolivia and that Bolivia was the aggressor?

Mr. EDEN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read the report, he will find the reason for the Committee's recommendation.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUAL NATIONALITY.

Brigadier-General NATION: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what would be the position in time of war of persons possessing two or more nationalities, as the relative convention has, apparently, not been ratified?

Mr. EDEN: The general principle of international law, which is applicable in time of war as in time of peace, is that where a person who has two or more nationalities is present in one of the
countries of which he is a national that country may treat him as its national and his other country or countries cannot extend to him their diplomatic protection. When such a person is elsewhere than in any of the countries of which he is a national, he may be claimed as a national by all the countries whose nationality he posesses, and in case of conflict the matter may be decided, according to the circumstances of the case, by the choice of the individual concerned, or by the authorities of the country where he is.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the definite reply for which the Russian Soviet Government were asked by the British Government in March last with regard to the plate and furniture stolen from the British embassy in Petrograd in 1918 by officials of the Soviet Government has now been received; and what is the nature of such reply?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow was instructed on 25th March last to press for a definite statement from the Soviet Government showing whether or not the missing property had been traced. I have not yet learnt the result of these representations.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not very discourteous to His Majesty's Government to allow an important matter like this to remain two months without a reply; and do not the Government think that it is full time that the property taken from His Majesty's Government, including the valuable property in the safes at the embassy, was restored, seeing that it was taken by Soviet officials?

Mr. EDEN: We certainly consider the matter important or we should not have made representations at all. Perhaps my hon. Friend and I have not quite the same standard of relative importance.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not possible that the Russian Government are making a thorough search among White Russians?

Mr. THORNE: Was any objection taken in 1918 in regard to this matter?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid that I shall have to have notice of that question.

Mr. THORNE: Of course there was not.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will a further request for a reply be made?

Mr. EDEN: I will consider that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE MARKS (CHINA).

Mr. CHORLTON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the proposed amendment to the trade-mark law in China; and whether he will take the opportunity of making representations to the Chinese Government on the necessity of providing better protection to British trade marks in China?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir; His Majesty's Government have not awaited the occasion of the proposed amendment to make representations in the sense suggested. The amendment in fact appears to be an improvement on the existing law.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can we have a little more information later?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, but we have reason to think that the present difficulties will be met by this arrangement.

MANCHURIA.

Mr. CHORLTON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet able to make a statement on the future prospects of trade of this country with Manchukuo?

Mr. EDEN: I am not in a position to forecast the future, but United Kingdom trade with Manchuria showed an increase in 1934 as compared with 1933 and I hope that this tendency will continue. A report on trading conditions in Manchuria will be published in the late summer or early autumn as an annex to a report on trading and economic conditions in China.

FINLAND (BRITISH FLYCATCHERS).

Captain DOWER: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state what is the result of his representations with regard
to the increased duty on British flycatchers imported from this country into Finland; and what further action he intends to take in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am awaiting a report from His Majesty's Minister at Helsingfors.

Captain DOWER: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind the urgency of the matter, owing to the seasonal nature of the trade?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The urgency of the matter is being borne in mind.

NEW POTATOES (IMPORTS).

Major CARVER: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how the April imports of new potatoes from abroad compare in quantity and value with the similar imports for the corresponding period in 1934?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Information respecting imports in April will not be available till Wednesday, when I will send a statement to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major CARVER: Will the hon. Gentleman's Department encourage the consumption of British potatoes by letting it be known that they are a healthy form of diet and not fattening?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

PIRACY.

Commander MARSDEN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to publish a report of the official investigation into the circumstances of the Tungchow piracy in which a British vessel was captured by Chinese pirates concealed on board within a few miles of the port of Shanghai?

Mr. EDEN: An inquiry by His Majesty's Government from which the Press and public were excluded was, for reasons connected with the taking of evidence, considered preferable to a public inquiry. The report on the inquiry is consequently not in a form suitable for publication.

RAILWAY LOAN (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Mr. MOREING: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Minister has made any representations to the Chinese Government requesting an early payment of principal and interest on the British loan for the construction of the Shanghai-Fencing section of the Shanghai-Hangchow-Ningpo Railway; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. EDEN: The loan in question was for the redemption of a mortgage. Repeated representations have been made but I regret to say so far without result.

Mr. MOREING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no payment in respect of interest has been made since 1928 and no repayment of capital since 1927, and cannot that matter be brought to the notice of the Chinese Government in a pressing manner?

Mr. EDEN: I am confident that His Majesty's Minister is doing all that he can in the matter, but I will certainly look into the information which my hon. Friend has given.

BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST.

Mr. MOREING: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the arrest by the Chinese authorities in North-West Kansu of the Hon. Desmond Parsons; what offence he is alleged to have committed; and whether he has yet been handed over to the British consular officials?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements have yet been made for the release of Mr. Desmond Parsons, who was recently arrested in the province of Kansu, China?

Mr. EDEN: Mr. Parsons was arrested a few days ago by the local authorities at Tunhuang in the Kansu Province on a charge of stealing antiquities from the local caves. His Majesty's Legation have made representations to the Chinese Government urging that Mr. Parsons be allowed to return to Peking and that he should be afforded every facility for the journey. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs have undertaken to instruct the provincial authorities at
once to send Mr. Parsons to Peking and to provide for his proper protection on the way.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any further statement on the position of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia?

Mr. EDEN: The position is that the Italo-Ethiopian dispute is included in the agenda for the next meeting of the League Council which is due to begin on 20th May. In the meantime the whole situation is receiving the most careful attention at the hands of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD AND TOBACCO (CONSUMPTION).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state approximately the estimated per capita consumption of bread, meat, sugar, milk and tobacco in Great Britain and in the principal countries of Europe?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Estimated per Caput consumption of the articles mentioned in my hon. and gallant Friend's question is not available on a reliably comparable basis and could not, I fear, be given in a tabular form as desired. For example, the usually accepted figures for the consumption of liquid milk in Great Britain are those given in the report of the Reorganisation Commission for Milk, which covers one of the most recent examinations of consumption of a staple foodstuff. The information available in respect of the consumption of this commodity in foreign countries relates to different years.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (CHEESE PRICES).

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the wholesale price of English factory-made cheese during the last few weeks has been from 4s. to 6s. less per cwt. than the best imported New Zealand cheese?

Mr. ELLIOT: A number of factors, particularly the volume of available supplies and the season of the year, cause variation
in the relative prices of English factory-made and New Zealand cheese. The present margin in price between these classes of cheese would appear to be influenced by the reduced imports from New Zealand in the first quarter of 1935, coupled with an accumulation of stocks of home-produced cheese.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does not this price seem to suggest that it is not necessary to give such a big subsidy to cheese factories at the expense of the consumers of liquid milk?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid that I do not see how that follows from my hon. Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: asked the Postmaster-General why he refused to accept for insertion in the London Telephone Directory an advertisement submitted by an agency acting on behalf of the Equity and Law Life Insurance Society?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Post Office rejected the advertisement in January last because it objected to the wording on grounds subsequently explained to the company. I understand that the company renewed their application on the 29th March for an advertisement in modified form, but unfortunately the desired space had in the meantime been let to another advertiser.

Mr. DUNCAN: Is it the policy of the Post Office to refuse advertisements of investments which mention a rate of interest which might be thought to compete with the Post Office or other Government stocks?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another matter of which I must have notice.

Mr. DUNCAN: Was not that the ground of the refusal in the original case?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that there was some discussion of that kind, but the company put forward the advertisement in a modified form after that. We were unable to insert it, but I hope that it will be possible to do something in future.

AIR MAILS (AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to state to what extent the Colonial and Dominion Governments concerned have agreed to support, financially and otherwise, the scheme for sending all first-class Empire air-mail on the African and Australian routes by air; and whether he can make any statement arising out of the return of the delegation which recently visited the Far Eastern Colonies and Australia in this connection?

Sir K. WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a comprehensive statement. The recent delegation discussed details of the Empire air-mail scheme with the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and India. The discussions were extremely valuable and considerable progress was made.

Captain MACDONALD: Is any report to be issued?

Sir K. WOOD: They were private discussions.

Captain MACDONALD: When will my right hon. Friend be able to make a statement?

Sir K. WOOD: Not for some time.

INLAND MAILS (MERSEY TUNNEL).

Mr. CLEARY: 23.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider making a contribution to the finances of the Mersey tunnel undertaking in view of the fact that his Department, who previously paid £2,000 per annum for conveyance of mails via the Mersey Railway and £200 per annum to the Birkenhead Corporation ferry steamers, now conveys mails free of all charge through the Mersey tunnel, the total value of which free service from 18th July, 1934, to 30th April, 1935, was £2, 434 6s. 9d., and also bearing in mind that any contribution would be welcome relief to the ratepayers of Liverpool and Birkenhead, who have to pay over £2,000,000 increase on the original estimate of £5,000,000 for the cost of the Mersey tunnel?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that I do not see my way to grant a contribution from Post Office funds for the purpose mentioned.

Mr. CLEARY: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a deputation from the Mersey Tunnel Joint Committee if they decide on such a course?

Sir K. WOOD: I think I had better await their request. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have a word with me, I should be pleased to discuss the matter with him.

MOTOR VANS (REAR LIGHTS).

Sir GIFF0RD FOX: 24.
asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made during the first four months of this year in reducing the proportion of Past Office vans the rear lights of which are substantially above the level for such lights; and what is the approximate proportion of Post Office vans with these lights above the normal level?

Sir K. WOOD: The position is as I previously informed my hon. Friend, but I am in communication with my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Mr. HALES: 25.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the production of an oil painting, to be hung in a suitable position in the Palace of Westminster, to commemorate the scene in Westminster Hall on the occasion of the visit of their Majesties to both Houses of Parliament, in order to hand down to posterity a permanent record of that event?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The question of the best form of any commemoration of last Thursday's ceremony will require very careful consideration, and, while grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, I cannot give a definite answer until I have made further inquiries.

Mr. HALES: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that over 53, 000 Australians and New Zealanders are now visiting Great Britain for the Jubilee celebrations, many of them for the first time in their lives, he will consider the advisability of organising an official reception to welcome them in the Albert Hall, London, in order to demonstrate
to our kinsmen overseas that their visit to this country is much appreciated and will strengthen the bonds of Empire?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): While I appreciate the motive underlying my hon. Friend's suggestion, I am afraid that its adoption would not be practicable. There are, of course, numerous individual functions in connection with the Silver Jubilee celebrations in which His Majesty's subjects from overseas are participating with His Majesty's subjects in this country, and I need hardly say how glad we are to see so many of our kinsmen from overseas present here on this happy occasion.

Sir JOHN POWER: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of special constables who were on duty in the Metropolis on 6th May?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The numbers were 3, 467 in the Metropolitan Police District and 885 in the City of London.

Sir J. POWER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the services rendered by special constables are entirely unpaid?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There are some allowances.

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will signalise the occasion of His Majesty's 25 years of constitutional monarchical reign by the despatch of a message of goodwill to the President of the United States of America?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): His Majesty has himself received a message of goodwill from the President of the United States, to which he has already sent a suitable reply. I do not consider, in the circumstances, that any further message is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

CHINESE EGGS.

Mr. HANNON: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the results of such investigation as has been made in relation to the food qualities of Chinese eggs imported into
this country; and if it has been ascertained that putrefaction takes place immediately such eggs cease to be in a frozen condition?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any investigation into the food qualities of Chinese eggs. He is advised that putrefaction does not take place immediately the eggs cease to be in a frozen condition.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that an investigation was promised on a former occasion, and will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what was the result of that inquiry?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The inquiry was into the bacteriological contents of the eggs, and the eggs were given, a good character.

Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the repulsive conditions under which these eggs are produced in China, and will not His Majesty's Government take any action to save the people of this country from having food of that kind brought here?

Mr. LAWSON: Is there any truth in the statement that these hens have a lower standard of living than British hens?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The simple fact is that the content of the eggs is not affected by what the hens eat.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Mr. HANNON: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has made any reply to the resolution adopted by the National Poultry Council at its conference at Southport, on 30th April, that the import of Chinese eggs into this country is a menace to public health, and that analytical examination has proved that such eggs are produced under filthy and insanitary conditions; and whether he contemplates action to prevent those eggs being imported into this country?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This resolution does not appear to have been received either in my Department or in, the Ministry of Agriculture. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer
my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on this subject on the 14th March.

Mr. HANNON: Would it be too much to ask the Minister to have inquiry made through our representative in China as to the circumstances under which these eggs are produced, so that the actual facts may be made known to the people of this country?

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CARRIER, IVER.

Sir A. WILSON: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that W. Barrett, a cattleman at Dromenagh Farm, Iver, Bucks, has been detained since 12th March in the isolation hospital at Cippenham on the unsupported statement of a single medical officer that he was suffering from an infectious disease, though he was at that date, and is now, considered by another doctor to be free from any disease; and whether he will take steps to procure his immediate release without prejudice to any claim he may put forward for damages for illegal detention?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend understands that the man referred to was not detained in the isloation hospital on the unsupported statement of a single medical officer, but that eight consecutive bacteriological examinations of swabs taken from his throat disclosed the presence of haemolytic streptococci. My right hon. Friend is informed that he was discharged from hospital as soon as bacteriological examination indicated that the organisms were no longer present.

Sir A. WILSON: Will the man receive pay or compensation for the time he was detained in hospital, and, if so, from what source?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should like notice of that question.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Member for this constituency has received no complaints regarding this case, and that it is only raised by the Anti-Vaccination League?

Sir A. WILSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the statement at pages 96 to 98 of the Report on the Health of the Army for 1932, that no appreciable decrease in the total dysentery figures has occurred during the five years in which an extensive search for dysentery carriers has
been in operation, and that routine investigation for carriers has been abandoned in view of the injustice entailed to individuals; and whether, in view of the fact that hæmolytic streptococci, which were the cause of the isolation of a cowman at Cippenham Isolation Hospital, are frequently found in healthy persons, he will institute inquiries with a view to preventing injustice to individuals in such cases?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but my right hon. Friend is advised that dysentery is not comparable with the streptococcal infections, and that the isolation of the man referred to in the second part of the question was, in the circumstances of the case, the proper course. He was isolated not merely because of the finding of certain organisms in his throat, but as a result of a combination of bacteriological findings and epidemiological evidence. My right hon. Friend sees no necessity for special inquiries on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION (IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED).

Brigadier-General NATION: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that, by reason of their subsidy, Imperial Airways, Limited, is competing with private unsubsidised charter companies at rates which, without subsidy, are unprofitable and hamper private enterprise; and whether he proposes to take steps to stop this unfair competition?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Imperial Airways' charges for charter flights are calculated on an economic basis, and I have no evidence to support my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that this company is competing unfairly with private unsubsidised charter companies.

Brigadier-General NATION: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, what actual amount of subsidy is paid to Imperial Airways, Limited; and whether that subsidy is for the sole purpose of developing air routes and regular Empire and foreign passenger services, or for what other purposes?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The subsidy provided in Air Estimates for the current financial year amounts to £473,000, of which £120,000 is covered by contributions from Dominion and Colonial Governments. The company is subsidised for the operation of efficient and regular air services within Europe and on the main Empire air routes for the transport of passengers, mail and freight.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (MENTAL PATIENT, LOCHGILPHEAD).

Mr. THORNE: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give the House any information in connection with the case of John Mulholland, late private in the Highland Light Infantry, who is at present an inmate of the Lochgilphead mental hospital; whether any application has been received for the release of this man, who is stated to be sane; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have made inquiry and find that Mr. John Mulholland has been an inmate of the Argyll and Bute District Asylum at Lochgilphead, under a Sheriff's Order, since 28th December, 1934. When admitted he was suffering from epilepsy and mental confusion. No communication regarding his discharge has been received by the General Board of Control for Scotland. I am taking immediate steps to have further inquiries made into the circumstances of the case, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will put down a further question at a later date. In the meantime I may say that Mr. Mulholland's mental state and general health have considerably improved during his residence in the asylum.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries as to why the sister of the man has been refused leave to have him taken home?

Sir G. COLLINS: I shall be very glad to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (PORT AND RAILWAY FACILITIES).

Mr. JANNER: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give an assurance
that the necessary improvements in storage facilities in the railway stations and ports of Palestine will be carried out by the forthcoming autumn, in time for the first shipment of citrus; and what is the estimated amount of the expenditure on this work for the current year?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the replies which he gave to him on the 27th of February, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) on the 28th of February. It is proposed to provide considerable sums for the construction of storage sheds during the current year but the final figures are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit and allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board at Castleford, Norman-ton, Pontefract, and Goole, respectively, at the latest date available?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Numbers of insured persons on the registers of the undermentioned employment exchanges at 5th April, 1935, with claims admitted for insurance benefit and unemployment allowances.



Insurances Benefit.
Unemployment Allowances.


Castleford,
2,022
2,527


Normanton
360
543


Pontefract
530
1,087


Goole
783
440

SPECIALISED EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. McENTEE: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to extend the number of specialised employment exchanges, on lines similar to those now operating for the catering and building trades in London?

Mr. HUDSON: The possibility of specialisation in the employment exchange service on lines similar to those indicated in the question is under consideration,
but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES.

Mr. McENTEE: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of a practice of certain marketing boards of receiving names of unemployed shorthand typists from the employment exchanges and then sending them to private employment agencies to be engaged, and paying fees to such agencies; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent this practice?

Mr. HUDSON: Certain cases of this kind occurred, I understand, in the early part of last year but were immediately discontinued on being brought to the notice of the Marketing Board concerned. I have no knowledge of any more recent instances.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (GUNNER'S DEATH, WOOLWICH BATHS).

Mr. THORNE: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can give any information in connection with the death of Gunner Lancaster, a recruit of the 4th Training Battery, Royal Artillery, Woolwich, who was taken ill and died at the Woolwich baths; and whether he can state the cause of death?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Inquiries have been made into this sad loss of a young soldier, but they do not enable me to add to the information which was given at the inquest and reported in the Press. The verdict at the inquest was "death by misadventure," and the opinion was expressed that death was due to drowning following a fainting attack.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL MINT (DISTRIBUTION OF GOLD PIECES).

Sir W. DAVISON: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the deputy-master of the Royal Mint has arranged for a lottery to be held of 25 gold pieces which are to be issued to the public in consideration of a payment of £50 for each piece, the value of such pieces being largely in excess of the payment demanded for each chance; and what action is being taken in the matter, in view of the provisions of the Betting and Lotteries Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend that I am advised that the scheme referred to has not the characteristics of a lottery, and no action on my part is called for.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend refer to the dictionary where he will see that the definition of the distribution of articles by lot is a lottery? Is it not a fact that the Government stated that the recent Lotteries Act was passed to suppress the gambling instinct, and that this is a, direct encouragement of it? Will he also tell the House by whom the draw will be made; whether it will be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; whether the Government are in possession of a mixing drum, and whether the Postmaster-General has been instructed to refrain from opening private letters addressed to the Royal Mint?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have consulted not only the dictionary but a high authority on this matter. I have always understood that an essential feature of a lottery was buying a chance, and that position does not arise in this case?

Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the 25 recipients of these coins will be chosen from among the hundreds of thousands of applicants for them?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES (SPEED LIMIT).

Mrs. COPELAND: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in some parts of the country, magistrates are endorsing the licences of motorists convicted of exceeding the 30-miles-perhour speed limit even when it is their first offence in many years of driving, whereas in other places licences are not endorsed in such circumstances; and whether, as endorsement of licence is too severe a penalty for a driver whose livelihood may depend on his clean licence and whose first offence it is, he will circularise all magistrates recommending a uniform penalty for first offenders without endorsing the licence unless special circumstances make the offence a serious one?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, the court before which a person convicted of exceeding a speed limit is
required to order the offender's licence to be endorsed, in the absence of any special reason to the contrary. The fact that he has not previously been convicted of a similar offence must be true at some time of every offender, and I could not suggest to magistrates that this could properly be regarded as in itself constituting a special reason for not ordering endorsement of the licence.

Mrs. COPELAND: Will the Minister bear in mind, that endorsement of licence is very hard in the case of drivers convicted of a first offence, and that it is very difficult to drive a car with one eye on the speedometer and the other on the road?

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. GARDNER: 46.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the number of accidents in which petrol-driven vehicles were involved during 1934 which resulted in loss of life or injury to the persons concerned through these vehicles catching fire; how many persons died or were injured in accidents in which fire followed some other mishap; and whether he has any record of petrol-driven vehicles taking fire on the roads apart from those cases in which loss of life or injury took place?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The special investigation into the causes of fatal road accidents in 1933 indicated that, in that year, explosion or fire on a vehicle was the primary cause of two, and a contributory cause of five, such accidents. Fires in motor vehicles in which no loss of life or injury occurs are not reported to my hon. Friend and he is therefore not in a position to give the hon. Member the other information for which he asks.

Mr. WEST: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport during which hour of the day most accidents occur on the roads in Great Britain?

Captain HUDSON: The special investigation made in 1933 showed that the hour during which there was the greatest number of fatal road accidents was between 5 and 6 p.m., when 9.3 per cent. of all such accidents occurred. Similar information is not available in respect of accidents not involving death.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is that in respect of the period when most of the public-houses are shut?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Can the hon. Gentleman give instructions that accidents not involving death should also be reported, so that we may know the accident figures, apart from those of fatal accidents?

Captain HUDSON: I will take that suggestion into consideration.

DE-RESTRICTION SIGNS.

Sir J. POWER: 47.
asked the Minister of Transport when the new de-restriction signs are to be put into use?

Captain A. HUDSON: Local authorities, with whom responsibility in this matter rests, have been asked to proceed as rapidly as possible with the provision and erection of the new signs.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the Ministry of Transport pay anything toward these signs?

Captain HUDSON: That is a separate question, and had better be put down.

LONDON OMNIBUS SERVICE.

Mr. J. DUNCAN: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the local dissatisfaction at the inadequacy of the Number 52 omnibus service from Lad-broke Grove at the present time, especially at the rush hours; and whether he will make representations to the London Transport Board to improve it?

Captain A. HUDSON: My hon. Friend is in communication with the board on this subject.

RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).

Mr. WEST: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of British railways were electrified in 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930 and to-day?

Captain HUDSON: The route miles of electrified railways in Great Britain at the end of the years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930 and 1934 were, respectively, about 25, 203, 370, 615 and 702.

MOTOR DRIVERS (WORKING HOURS).

Mr. THORNE: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a report in connection with a firm of contractors at Hammersmith, who were fined £10 on each of two summonses and
£3 5s. costs at Horncastle, Lincs., for causing a lorry driver to work more than 11 hours in 24 hours on 18th and 19th February and were also fined £2 for failing to cause records of journeys to be kept; whether he has received a report from Inspector Dodson in connection with this case; whether he is aware that the contractors have since dismissed the lorry driver without explanation; and whether he will take steps to withhold the granting of licences to contractors who violate the Road Traffic Act of 1933?

Captain HUDSON: This case had not previously been brought to my hon. Friend's notice. The granting of licences under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, is a matter for the licensing authorities set up under that Act. Under Section 13 of that Act they have power in certain circumstances to revoke or suspend a, licence if the conditions attached to it have not been complied with. Also in considering any application for an A or B licence they are required to have regard to the previous conduct of the applicant in the capacity of a carrier of goods.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the man in question is a Government contractor, and does he not think that if contractors of this kind employ people for such long hours they should be struck off the Government contract list?

Captain HUDSON: This is a matter for the licensing authority, which is an independent authority set up by Parliament, and representation should be made to that authority and not to the Ministry.

Mr. THORNE: Will not the Postmaster-General look into this matter, as it belongs to his Department?

HIGHWAY CODE.

Sir G. FOX: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to take steps to secure that the provision in the new highway code enjoining that riders should make use of grass and other margins wherever possible shall override local by-laws or provisions to the contrary effect, in order that riders may know which set of instructions to follow?

Captain A. HUDSON: The code directs riders to use grass and other verges where these are available. They cannot be said to be available if their use is prohibited by some local provision.

Sir G. FOX: How will the riders know whether the by-laws stop the use of the grass tracks?

Captain HUDSON: Riders are usually local people who know the local by-laws. No alteration has been made by putting this into the highway code.

Sir G. FOX: 53.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the provision in the new highway code that tramcars may be overtaken on either side, he can state which towns in Great Britain have in force local provisions to the effect that tramcars may only be overtaken on one particular side; and what steps will be taken to see that such local provisions are properly brought to the notice of through motor traffic?

Captain A. HUDSON: There are local by-laws in force in four towns, namely, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen, which prohibit the passing of tramcars on the near side at authorised stopping places when passengers are boarding or alighting. These provisions have been in force for some years, and my hon. Friend is not aware that difficulties have arisen in the case of through traffic.

Sir G. FOX: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is often friction between the passing motorist and the police because motorists do not know these regulations, and when they pass trams as they do in other towns they get into trouble?

Sir W. BRASS: Would it not be so much better to have the same rule in every town in the whole country?

Captain HUDSON: I do not think it has yet been decided whether the by-law in question is a success or not. In reply to the previous supplementary question, may I point out that the highway code does not alter the present position. I do not see what could be done short of putting another set of notices all round these towns, which is undesirable. The matter is much better left as it is at present.

Sir W. BRASS: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think that the local authorities he has mentioned should come into line with the other local authorities?

Captain HUDSON: I will ask my hon. Friend whether he will consider that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (SOCIAL SERVICES).

Mr. WEST: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total net expenditure in 1933 on social services, excepting sums spent on war pensions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I would refer the hon. Member to the table in Part I of the Return of Public Social Services (Command Paper 4749 of 1934) which, except in the case of items (h)-(l) in that table, contains the figures of estimated expenditure in 1933. If those items are dealt with on the basis of taking figures of actual expenditure in the previous year, the total expenditure in 1933 may be estimated at £478,483,000, of which £42,842,000 is in respect of war pensions.

Mr. WEST: In view of the total figure which the hon. Gentleman has just given, is not the figure of £500,000,000, so frequently referred to by his supporters, grossly misleading and inaccurate?

Mr. COOPER: The difference between £478,000,000 and £500,000,000 might be worked out by the hon. Member.

Mr. WEST: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that £100,000,000 of that £478,000,000 comes from the contributions of the beneficiaries of the social services?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (UNIVERSITY, CAIRO).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many professors at the university of Cairo are British to-day and how many of other nationalities, and, of these, how many are French; and how these figures compare with the position 10 years ago?

Mr. EDEN: The total number of British professors in the Egyptian University at Cairo to-day is 15. The total number of foreign professors is 16, of whom seven are French. According to the statistics available, the equivalent numbers in 1925 were: British professors 10, foreign professors 13, of whom six were French.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir John Serocold Paget Mellor, Baronet, for County of Warwick (Tamworth Division).

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills: Mr. Thomas Cooper.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY—Progress, 10th May.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Excluded Areas and Partially Excluded Areas.)

Amendment proposed [10th May, 1935]: In page 289, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule, and to add:
The North Cachar Hills (in the Cachar District).
The Mikir Hills (in Nowgong and Sibsagar Districts).
All Tribal Territories on the frontier of Assam which at the time of coming into operation of this Act are unadministered.

Bengal.

The Chittagong Hill Tracts.

Madras.

The Ganjam, Vizagapatam, and Godavari Agencies.

The Nallamalai Hills (in Kurnool District).

The Laccadive Islands, including the Amindivi Islands and Minicoy.

Central Provinces.

The Dindori Tahsil of Mandla District.

The Garchiroli Tahsil, &c., Sironcha Tahsil and Zamindaris, and the Ahiri Zamindaris of the Chanda District.

Bihar and Orissa.

The Damin-i-koh (in the Santal Parganas District).

The Kolhan revenue thana (in the Singbhum District).

The Khondmals sub-division of the Angul District.

The Ranchi District, except the town and suburbs of Ranchi.

Punjab.

Spiti.

Lahaul.

United Provinces.

Almora District.

Garwhal.

PART II.

Partially Excluded Areas.

Assam.

The Garo Hills District.

The British portion of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District other than Shillong Municipality and Cantonment.

Bengal, &c.

The Darjeeling District.

The Sherpur and Susung Parganas of the Mymensingh District.

Madras.

The Wynad Taluk of Malabar District.

The Kollegal Taluk and Anaimalai Hills of Coimbatore District.

The Palni Hills of Madura District.

The Javadi Hills of North Arcot District.

The Sitteri Shevaroy and Kollimalai Hills of Salem District.

The Kalrayan Hills of Salem and South Arcot Districts.

The Pachaimalai Hills of Salem and Trichinopoly Districts.

The Nilgiri Hills.

Central Provinces.

The Seoni District.

The Chhindwara District.

Such areas of the Mandla District as are not totally excluded.

Such areas of the Chanda District as are not totally excluded.

The Harsud Tahsil of the Nimar District.

The Betul and Bhainsdehi Tahsils of the Betul District.

Raipur District except the Raipur and Baloda Bazaar Tahsils and the Phusar, Bilaigarh, Katgi, and Bhatgaon Zamindaris.

The Sanjari Tahsil Zamindari of the Drug District.

The Bilaspur District except the Bilaspur Tahsil Khalsa and Janjgir Tahsil.

Bihar and Orissa.

The District of Sambalpur.

The Sadr Sub-division of Angul District.

Such areas of Chota Nagpur Division as are not totally excluded.

Such areas of the Santal Parganas District as are not totally excluded.

Punjab.

The Tahsil of Kulu and Saraj.

Bombay.

The West Khandesh District.

The Satpura Hills reserved Forest Areas of East Kandesh.

The Surat District.

The Thana District.

The Dohad and Jhalod Talukas of the Panch Mahals District."—[Mr. Cadogan.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 9, stand part of the Schedule."

3.21 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: The Committee will remember that we have now come to the last three of the 30 days which, under the arrangement that was come to, were allocated to the Committee stage of the Bill. I am going to suggest to the Committee what seems to me to be the fairly obvious allocation of these three days, as follows. I suggest that to-day we might complete the Seventh Schedule, to which there are a large number of Amendments down, though I do not think any of them need take any long time. About half of them are consequential.
Then I would suggest that to-morrow we should finish the remainder of the original Schedules to the Bill. There is not very much on any of these, with the exceptions of a few Amendments to the Eighth Schedule. Possibly, after that, to-morrow night, we might start the new Schedules (Provisions as to Franchise). That would give us at any rate the whole of Wednesday, and I should hope part of to-morrrow, for the new Franchise Schedule. I only submit this to the Committee as being, as I have said, the fairly obvious allocation of the time, as we are now pretty near the end, and I hope it may be possible to do it in that way.

3.23 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I feel a certain responsibility for the subject dealt with in the Amendment before the Committee, because I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Select Committee which heard the evidence on this subject presented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Welling-borough (Wing-Commander James). I cannot say that I look back on the way in which I dealt with this subject as being one of the most successful of my efforts. The real truth is that, in this subject of backward tracts or excluded areas, we are dealing with a neglected garden. It is not a question of His Majesty's Government at this moment doing something new, which is going to throw these people into a dangerous position. The fact is that we are dealing with a number of areas which, under the old administration of the Government of India, before the reforms altogether, had not, perhaps, been dealt with with the discrimination which their particular problems demanded.
We listened on Friday to a most interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), but we are dealing, for instance in the Central Provinces, with a large number of tracts which have not only been already under the full operation of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, but which were, if I am right, never even specially treated under the Scheduled Districts Act; and the proposal which is now being put to His Majesty's Government, which was put to the Simon Commission, and which was put to the Joint Select Committee,
is that something new ought to be done to protect these areas. What can we reasonably do at this moment? What is it that the needs of these special districts demand? We are dealing, roughly speaking, with two broad classes of areas. One is composed of those areas which have a homogeneous primitive population. Of these, certain tracts are already in the Schedule. We are also dealing with a number of tracts where the aboriginal population exists side by side with, generally, an Hindu population. That is the case, I think, with most of the tracts in the Central Provinces. There are tracts which it is proposed in the Amendment to schedule as partially excluded areas, where the aboriginal population is not claimed to be more than from 25 to 60 per cent.
For dealing with these two broad classes of difficult areas, the Bill provides no fewer than three methods—the method of total exclusion, the method of partial exclusion, and the method of dealing with the areas under the Governor's special responsibility for minorities. As between these methods we wasted, I think, a considerable amount of time on the Sub-Committee of the Joint Select Committee in considering the relative merits of total and partial exclusion. It does not seem to me to matter very much. Personally, I should consider that partial exclusion in itself gives so much protection that the question whether it should be total or partial is merely a matter of administrative convenience, on which the arguments are very even either way. But is even partial exclusion a possible way of dealing with areas where the aboriginal population and what I may call for short the ordinary population exist side by side?
We never get on to this subject without somebody talking about the "Jungle Book"; but the chief impression left on my mind by the "Jungle Book" is precisely that of an aboriginal population existing in a semi-settled, semi-nomadic condition in the midst of an ordinary agricultural population. Is it possible to deal effectively with that problem by the exclusion of a whole area, and what is the extent to which such a situation can be dealt with under the Governor's special responsibility for minorities? Can the Governor, in his ordinary special responsibility to minorities,
for instance, issue an ordinance excluding the application of a particular piece of agrarian legislation from application of particular populations or particular tracts of land within one of these broad areas? Our real trouble to-day—and I think it is the feeling of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough and of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) and of those supporting this Amendment—is, frankly, that this subject has been so neglected in the past that we have not a reasoned and fully stated body of knowledge on which we can judge the situation and what we ought to do. The Joint Select Committee assumed in its report—I do not say that it recommended—that this question would be dealt with by Order in Council and not be in the Bill at all, and that would at least have given time for a full inquiry, for the collection of information and the opinions of local administrators, and it would have been possible to issue an Order in Council with full knowledge before the appointed day when provincial autonomy comes into operation.
In dealing with the matter at the moment we are bound to do it on very imperfect information and on such recommendations from local governments as, I have no doubt, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give us in a moment. Therefore, all I can do as a contribution to this discussion is to suggest one or two broad principles. In the first place, wherever there is a homogenous population occupying a district of this kind without any great intermixture of other more advanced populations, that area should be totally or partially excluded, even if it be very small and even if it be so large—as may be the case in Orissa—as seriously to diminish the area over which the Provincial Legislature will be able to legislate. Whether that exclusion demands a form of total exclusion or partial exclusion, as I have said, I do not very much care. Secondly, I suggest that we should have a clear definition of the special responsibilities of the Governor outside exclusion towards minorities whose needs cannot be dealt with by the wholesale withdrawal of a region from the operation of ordinary legislation. Thirdly, I would suggest that this Schedule should give power to
the Secretary of State to add other areas by Order in Council either at any date before the appointed day when provincial autonomy comes into operation, or, if that does not leave time enough, say, within one or two years after the appointed day. Meanwhile, and starting at once, cannot we have such a survey of the problem and a collection of data laid before this House in the form of a report as will enable it to feel that it really has the facts before it and is capable of judging?
It is the most difficult problem in the world as to exactly how far you are to keep back in cold storage the aboriginal population, and as to how far and how fast you are to lead it on towards absorption into the wider community around it. That problem may have different answers from different sections of the same people. I should imagine, for instance, that the hill dwelling parts of the population are far less advanced than the plain dwelling parts, and that in the plain dwelling parts there might be a very good argument for not excluding them from the ordinary operation of legislation and administration under the new system. But let us, by the laying of a report before this House, have the facts upon which we feel that we can come to a considered judgment, for at the present moment neither the Statutory Commission nor the Joint Select Committee nor His Majesty's Government have been able to give the House sufficient guidance for a decision upon this most important matter.

3.36 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): In view of the fact that this Debate started at our last sitting and of the speech which has just been made, I think that it would be advisable if I present to the Committee at this stage the problem of the excluded and partially excluded areas as it appears to the Government. The speeches to which we have listened have all shown great evidence of the importance which the House of Commons attaches to these aboriginals, either in a wholly excluded or a partially excluded area. I had the privilege myself of sitting on the subcommittee of the Joint Select Committee over which my Noble Friend presided. All of us there were impressed by the sincerity of my hon. and gallant Friend
the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), who himself has had experience of these areas and of these tribes. The members of these tribes are such as to endear themselves to members of the Committee. They are of attractive disposition, free and friendly, and it would be the first wish of British legislators to do their best to look after them and to consider their economic and social welfare. Some hon. Members who have had the opportunity perhaps of meeting them in a shooting expedition in Central India know that they would do their best to provide any hon. Member with game, either large or small, and that by their general sportsmanship and their attractive character they would endear themselves to any hon. Member who had the privilege of having contact with them. Not only in these casual contacts, but also under the examination of specialists, who interest themselves in the aboriginal tribes of India, they reveal characteristics which should be of great interest to the Committee and cause us to insist upon attending to this matter with the utmost care and consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), speaking from his long experience, informed the Committee further upon some of these tribes. He referred to the Report of the Statutory Commission, and my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) referred to the Report of the Joint Select Committee. The assessment of my Noble Friend was perfectly correct, that, if he wishes more to be done by the way of partial or total exclusion of these areas, it is not to the advice of either of these authoritative bodies that he must look. But I must warn the Committee that it was not the proposal of the Statutory Committee nor of the Joint Select Committee that other areas, taking the broad question raised, should be added to the list than His Majesty's Government have included in the Bill. We have included in the Schedule those areas which were laid before the Joint Select Committee, and I do not think that the Noble Lord or the hon. Member for Finchley put before us exactly the point of view that they have given us the advantage of hearing on this Amendment. However, it is not through any criticism of His Majesty's Government's inclusions in this
Schedule that we are approaching the subject but, as the Noble Lord said, with a view to exploring a deserted garden. I cannot, however, accept the suggestion that the garden has been as long neglected as the Noble Lord made out.
These questions were examined thoroughly by the Statutory Committee and by the Joint Select Committee. The long Amendment now before us has been submitted by us to the closest examination and has been submitted to every Provincial Government concerned in India and to the Government of India. So far as time permits, I shall do my best to give the Committee some of the information that has come to us on the subject of the areas proposed by the Amendment either to be totally or partially excluded. Let me at once remove any anxiety on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley. I congratulate him on having returned from a visit to the head hunters. The hon. Member will realise, I hope with satisfaction, that the undertaking that he gave to the head hunters that he would do his best to look after their wishes and exclude them from the operations of the Bill has actually been already fulfilled.

Mr. CADOGAN: I knew perfectly well that the Naga hill tribes had been excluded, and I was giving them as an example of the ordinary hill tribesmen of India.

Mr. BUTLER: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The Naga hill tribes, to which he devoted some part of his remarks, will be excluded among the totally excluded areas in the Bill. I do not think that I can accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that they do represent literally and exactly the various other bill tribes, which I shall endeavour to consider in some detail. They have the somewhat unpleasant habit of which my hon. Friend spoke. Apart from that fact, they are very much isolated from the rest of India. In the district in which they are situated they fall very easily into the category of total exclusion. Before I further examine the Amendment I would repeat that every authoritative body that has examined the question, every Provincial Government to whom we have submitted it, and also the Government of India, hold certain views which it would be right at this stage to lay before the Committee.
Let me take, first, the question of the excluded areas. The general principle upon which we have come to the decision with regard to total exclusion is that those areas should be few and be selected with great care and that their total exclusion should be justified. We have, therefore, included the areas which hon. Members will have noticed in the Sixth Schedule. We have consulted the Government of India and the Provincial Governments concerned as to what opportunity there is for other total exclusions, and as a result of investigation we have found it possible to give an undertaking that at a later stage of the Bill we will submit proposals to omit certain other areas from the operation of the Measure and add them to the totally excluded areas. The areas which we have in mind are the Laccadive Islands, including the Amindivi Islands and Minicoy, and in Assam the North Cachar Hills District. We have also named those two isolated areas in the Punjab, Spiti and Lahaul. These areas we shall be prepared to put in Part I because they seem to us to justify the description that I have given for the category of total exclusion.
When we come to consider some of the other areas mentioned on the Order Paper, we find that they do not in any particular correspond to that general description of total exclusion, and for three main reasons it would be unwise totally to exclude them from the operation of the reforms. Let me remind the Committee that total exclusion implies that those areas will come under the Governor in his discretion and that therefore the administration of the areas will be a direct responsibility of the Governor himself. The administrative difficulty which would arise out of the isolation of certain of the areas contained in the Amendment, and their total exclusion, would be very great, particularly if the area were a small one. An area, for example, which came wholly under the direction of the Governor would very likely not be able to profit by the general scheme of administration, whether it be in education or other matters, so that the results of the administrative difficulty would be more than we can contemplate.
The second difficulty that we have in regard to the question of total exclusion
is that many of the areas mentioned in the list of the Amendment have been already under the existing reforms since they were brought into operation in 1919. In Madras I am told by the Governor of Madras that the Nallamalai Hills, in Kurnool District, have always been subject to the ordinary administration. In the Central Provinces the Dindori Tahsil of Mandla District and the Garchiroli Tahsil, have been under the present reforms and have had the franchise. In Bihar and Orissa the Ranchi District, except the town and suburbs of Ranchi, have already been included in the existing reform scheme and therefore for over 12 years have enjoyed the benefit of the reforms. It would therefore be very difficult for the Committee at this stage suddenly to suggest, in view of the administrative difficulties to which I have referred, that these districts, which have already been benefiting from the reforms, should be totally excluded from their operation. I can assure the Committee that such a proposal would be received with intense dissatisfaction in India, and the dissatisfaction arising from such a proposal would operate against the future happiness of the areas which it is proposed should be totally excluded.
Let me deal with another question. I will take the percentage of aboriginals in some of these areas. There are, for example, in the United Provinces two areas which it is proposed totally to exclude. The percentage of men of lower caste, whether aboriginal or not, in each of these areas is very small. In Garwhal the population is made up somewhat as follows. There are about 245,000 Rajputs, 101,000 Brahmins, and only 68,000 men of lower caste. The proportions in the Almora District are very much the same. There are large numbers of Rajputs and Brahmins; the figures correspond closely to those in Garwhal, while the number of Hindus of lower castes and the number of aboriginals is only 90,000.
The characteristically small percentage of aboriginals in the areas proposed to be totally excluded by the amendment is also a feature of the areas in Bihar and Orissa. In the Damin-i-koh there are only 25 per cent. of aboriginals according to our advices from the local Government. In view of the administrative difficulties and the fact that many of the areas have been under the reforms for some years, as well as the small percentage
of aboriginals in a large number of the areas which we have not been able to accept for total exclusion, I submit that it would be very improper and invidious to do so, and that it would alienate the population in the surrounding districts. Let me remind the Committee that the Almora and Garwhal Brahmins are some of the most prominent people in the provincial services of the United Provinces. Garwhal is also a centre for the recruitment of the Indian Army, and it is one of the most sacred centres of the Hindu religion. The Holy Himalaya contains the sacred place of Badrinat, and to suggest total exclusion at this stage would I think be unwise, because it would alienate these classes whom we ought to try to interest in the future of the aboriginals.
It seems, however, that the Noble Lord and others are not so much interested in total exclusion but are ready, if we can help them, to consider the matter of partial exclusion. Total exclusion is extremely difficult; let me consider for a moment partial exclusion. The problem which the Committee has to face in dealing with partial exclusion is that these areas have a population which is partly aboriginal and partly the ordinary agricultural population of the Province. There are in many of the areas which it is suggested should be partially excluded small pockets of aboriginals whom it would be almost impossible to pick out and surround with a ring fence. To use the garden metaphor of the hon. Member, the aboriginals do not always stick to their own particular garden border; these blooms are to be found in every part of the garden, and it makes it difficult to pick out a particular bed of aboriginals and ring it round with a small fence. That is why we have had great difficulty in including certain aboriginal areas as partially excluded areas, but in Part II of the Schedule there are a number of areas which can definitely be classed as partially excluded areas.
If an examination is made in detail of some of the areas which it is suggested should be excluded you will find that great injustice would be done if they were classed as partially excluded areas. Take the Province of Bengal, and the Sherpur and Susung Parganas of the Mymensingh District. There are in that district, so we are informed
by the Bengal Government, only 34,000 Garos in a population for the whole district of 4,000,000. In the Parganas the number of aboriginal are but a small proportion of the population, and to pick out this particular district as a partially excluded area would make it almost impossible to deal with the problem when you are considering the rest of the Province and the various minorities in the Province. In the same way, the tribes in the Nilgiri Hills are mixed up with the rest of the population, and it is almost impossible to schedule them as a partially excluded area. In Bombay we have asked the Provincial Government to investigate the districts referred to in the Amendment. They were not declared backward tracts under the present Act, and they are unsuitable for inclusion in the partially excluded areas under the present Bill. The Bombay Government consider that it would result in extra cost and considerable difficulty, and, in addition, there is no demand on the part of the districts.

Wing-Commander JAMES: When the Under-Secretary refers to the present Act, is he referring to the 1919 Act?

Mr. BUTLER: I am referring to Section 52, paragraph A of the 1919 Act. None of these areas in Bombay were regarded as backward areas under that Act. In considering the Central Provinces we see most clearly the difficulty of picking out certain of these aboriginal areas and attempting to make them into partially excluded areas. In certain districts of the Central Provinces, although the aboriginals are found in preponderating numbers in certain parts unmixed with the rest of the population, for the most part you will find a pocket here and a rather larger number there, and it is extremely difficult to pick out a district like the Mehlgat Tahsil of the Amrasti District, which is a very small area, in which there are but a small number of aboriginals who are mixed with the rest of the population. It is in the partially excluded areas that we are up against the problem of these pockets of aboriginals. We have included in the Schedule as many partially excluded areas as we can find which correspond to the Noble Lord's requirement of being a homogeneous unit, but we cannot find, as at present advised, in his long list
other areas which are susceptible to the definition of being homogeneous units.
The Noble Lord referred to the possibility of dealing with these pockets of aboriginals under the special responsibilities of the Governor-General. I understand from reading the evidence of Dr. Hutton and from the speeches which have been made that the Committee will be anxious to secure that a too rapid land alienation will not take place in these areas, that the operation of the revenue law in a particular area will be satisfactory and that they will receive proper educational facilities. I am asked by the Noble Lord whether in order to deal with the problem of land alienation and the application of the Tenancy Act to the area it would be possible for the Governor-General to do so as a special responsibility. On this point let me refer the Committee to the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor-General in dealing with minorities. The Instruments of Instructions to the Governor-General and Governors in dealing with minorities has always had in mind the possibility that the special responsibility should be used, if necessary, in cases of pockets of aboriginals, and if the Committee will turn to paragraph X dealing with the special responsibility of the Governors, as defined in the Instrument of Instructions, they will see that it reads as follows:
Our Governor shall interpret his special responsibility for the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities as requiring him to secure, in general, that those racial or religious communities for the members of which special representation is accorded in the Legislature—
This is the part to which I would call the attention of the Committee—
and those classes who, whether on account of the smallness of their number of their lack of educational or material advantages or from any other cause, cannot as yet fully rely for their welfare on joint political action in the Legislature, shall not suffer, or have reasonable cause to fear, neglect or oppression.
Those words in the Instrument of Instructions were intended to indicate to the Governor that he should use his special responsibilities for minorities, and, in particular, for aboriginals and backward tribes, and there is no doubt under his special responsibility it will be possible for him, in the words of the Noble Lord, to issue an ordinance to deal
with particular populations in a particular way. The special responsibility, however, as defined in this Bill, in all matters operates within the sphere of action of the ministers, and, in the first place, it will be reasonable to hope that, in company with his own ministers, he can make the necessary arrangements. There are certain arrangements in force with regard to education, land alienation or tenancy in the Central Provinces, and it will be hoped that such arrangements will continue. In the event, however, of a quarrel with the ministers, the Governor would certainly be entitled to take the action to which the Noble Lord referred. The Committee may ask how can the Governor keep himself informed; how can he know that the situation is not deteriorating in one of those particular pockets of aboriginals, or that, say, in a little district the small tribe to which the hon. and gallant Member referred might be oppressed? How is the Governor of Madras to know how to start negotiations with ministers for the improvement of conditions, or, in the last and unpleasant resort, to use his own special powers under this Bill?
We have investigated this matter with as much sympathy as possible, and some time ago my right hon. Friend submitted a suggestion to local governments as to the possible appointment of an officer who should have the welfare of these particular backward tribes at heart. I am informed that the Government of Bombay have already such an officer and a board to deal with aboriginals and advise the local government, and on their advice it is possible for the local government to take action in cases where action is necessary. I can appreciate that the Committee feel anxious that there might not be sufficient information to deal with these areas. Therefore, the Government are quite ready, in submitting their draft of the Instrument of Instructions at a later date to the House, to give the assurance to the Committee now that, if the Committee so desire, some reference to this need for regular information being supplied to the Governor should be inserted, and the general wording of the Instrument of Instructions, advising the Governor of the method in which he should use his special responsibility, should also be reviewed at the same time, in order to try to meet the desire of hon. and right hon. Members
who have raised this question in Debate in Committee. I am perfectly ready to give that assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend whom I had the privilege of consulting over the week-end. We are extremely anxious to find the best possible solution for these areas. I have shown to the Committee the great difficulties of total exclusion, the partial difficulties of partial exclusion and the impossibility of further defining, as we can see it at present, homogeneous areas which it is possible partially to exclude.
In conclusion, I must warn the Committee of the general attitude on these matters of our advisers in India, of all the governments and of His Majesty's Government here. While we do not for a moment deny the importance of special measures for these areas, if we have to choose between assimilation or segregation, we go on as before with assimilation. Segregation, we feel, may not in every case meet the proper desires and needs of such areas. In certain areas, seats will be provided in the Legislature, and I believe that the arrangement made will be for the proper care and the proper welfare of these areas. But it would be disastrous at this stage to take any step which could alienate the public opinion of what may be called the advanced communities in India whom we wish to interest in the welfare of the backward areas. Let us look to the future. If at this moment we decide on a ring-fence policy and segregate as many areas as we can, we put off to a later date the chance of assimilating the backward areas in the general polity of India, and the Government are certain that if we insist on a policy of wholesale segregation, it will be unlikely to confer a benefit upon those areas commensurate with the discrimination against a majority of the population which would be felt by certain classes in India whom we wish to interest in these matters. We, therefore, regret that we are unable to accept the Amendment on the Order Paper, but I have given the assurance that we shall be ready to look into the matter in the sense I have indicated.

4.8 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES: The Under-Secretary of State has for many months been most tolerant of my importunings on this subject, and in his defence this afternoon of these miserable, misleading
proposals of the Government he has my most sincere sympathy. We recognise that he is not responsible for policy, and he is in an impossible position in trying to defend the policy of the Government in this matter. This problem of the backward tribes, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said, has been allowed to slide all through. It has been a matter of no interest to anybody except to a few cranks like myself. These unfortunate people have always gone to the wall in politics, as in real life. In spite of what the Under-Secretary said, this subject has never been thoroughly examined. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report was quite clear on that point. It said this—I am quoting from the reference to the Report in the Simon Commission's report:
There were certain backward areas to which the reforms could not apply and the typically backward areas should be administered by the Governors. Both the definition of these areas and their constitutional arrangements after the reforms were left for further consideration.
Therefore, naturally when the Under-Secretary referred to the 1919 Act and said that the areas in Bombay to which he referred were not at that time scheduled, all that had happened was that they were just allowed to slide. They were not scheduled then because they were not bothered about. The Statutory Commission was equally clear, and went so far as to say that, unless the primitive tribes were entrusted to the Centre, their interests would be overlooked. I am not going to bore the Committee or the Under-Secretary by quoting paragraph after paragraph, but all of them in the survey and recommendations of the Simon Commission make that clear. I would, however, like to call attention to this point. It is commonly assumed that the drafting of the Statutory Commission's Report was the work of the present Foreign Secretary. We all know with what care he avoids ever letting himself be put in the wrong. And how, if there is any doubt that he might not be correct, he inserts some phrase that enables him later to express a slightly different opinion. The argument that by so doing, while he is never likely to be put in the wrong, and is never wholly in the right, does not apply here, because that survey has never been contested, and the unqualified recommendation was
that this matter should be the subject of further consideration.
Then we come to the Joint Select Committee. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said, with deference to the members of the Joint Select Committee present, that this Schedule implements the recommendation of that Committee. The reference on page 222, paragraph 378, shows that quite clearly. They said that there were matters for subsequent delimitation, and that those matters should be looked into—not that this matter should be dealt with finally in the Act, as there would not have been time for the needed survey. I think there would have been time if the Government had gone ahead with the survey, for which some of us asked nearly two years ago but they let the matter slide again, and now they have to tinker with the Instrument of Instructions to get round the mess they have made. I apologise for speaking with some heat, but I feel very strongly on this matter. I have spent a good many months in those backward areas in three separate Provinces, in not one of which is there any exclusion at all.
The Secretary of State, as he showed in the Debate on Clause 92 of this Bill, is completely misinformed. He said in this House on 22nd March, in a speech of a few minutes, four things which were definitely and provably contrary to the facts. He said, for example, that there was no part of our administration in India of which we could be more justifiably proud than our administration of these backward areas. The Franchise Committee, which also incidentally recommended further examination, referred to the injustice and oppression which those areas have suffered in the past at the hands of
the ignorance of administration and legislation as to their special customs and conditions.
Then he said that the proposals of the Government did not cover the whole of the primitive population of India, but that they did cover those populations which are self-contained. That, of course, is the line on which the Under-Secretary has now gone. That is not the case. The Census Commission's report, 1931, shows that clearly. Take Bombay. There are 2,841,000 aboriginals in that Province. It cannot be contended that there are not very large areas with an overwhelming
preponderance of aboriginal populations in Bombay. I have spent weeks and months in the areas. I do not profess to be an ethnologist or an anthropologist, but I know a Bhil when I see one. There are the Central Provinces, with 4,065,000 of these people, and huge areas as is so well known to the hon. Member for the English. Universities (Sir R. Craddock), and like part of South Chanda, which I know well, where you have 95 per cent. of population Dravidian, Madras has 1,266,000 of these people. I do not pretend that they are wholly in homogeneous areas, but there are large tracts which should well and properly be excluded. The principle of exclusion is not in dispute. What is good for one area surely cannot be bad for another area where the same conditions appertain?
Will the Under-Secretary reveal to the Committee the objections raised by the local Governments? If he will do that we shall be able to answer them. I am not prepared to guess, though I think I could do so fairly accurately, what the objections were. Will the Under-Secretary tell us in some detail what the objections were? I do not mind if the local Government is frightened of some particular politician. That is not a valid objection. My hon. Friend talked about the intense objection of those intellectuals whose help we want to secure. I can only say that the few prominent Indian politicians with whom in years gone by I have talked over this subject in India have never displayed the faintest interest in this subject. It was entirely outside their ken. They may be a little bit worried now about losing a little sphere of influence, but can anyone see a Poona Brahmin giving up anything willingly?
Then there is the question of cost. That is answered in the evidence and the discussion of the Joint Select Committee, as referred to in question No. 1675. At one time I thought that perhaps the Scheduled Districts Act might be applied, but the Act is entirely out of date and many of the names in it I cannot even recognise. Might not the Government consider reviving in some form the wide powers of certification that exist under the Scheduled Districts Act? Under the Bill areas excluded or partially excluded can
revert, as and when they become fit, to normal government, and we would like to see them do so in due course, but there is no power whatever for a reverse procedure. If the Committee let this Schedule go through as it is, the matter is entirely out of their hands and in the hands of these local Governments, which I regret to say, are in many cases entirely hostile. I have had put into my hands this weekend a book which was published in Bombay last year. It is written by an unofficial Indian, Mr. A. N. Weling, and is a little study of one particular tribe. The author says in his preface that it is a revised version of the thesis that he submitted for his M. A. degree at Bombay University in 1930. He says, in his preface:
Want of practical sympathy, or rather a right apprehension of the value and importance of anthropological research on the part of Indian administrative officers has at times proved an insurmountable obstacle in the way of giving the subject a thorough treatment.
That is the recent testimony of an unofficial Indian in a book published in Bombay. It refers to only three years ago, and in Bombay of all the Presidencies, because the particular tribe, the Katkaris, that he investigated is in Bombay Presidency, which is not by any means the most backward or benighted of the Provinces.
Then a lot of play was made on the ground that we must not upset the practice now in operation, particularly with reference to the Central Provinces. It is said, "The areas that you wish to exclude are already under normal provincial government; how then can we at this stage put them under any other form of government?" They have drifted under normal government in many cases comparatively recently. Many of these areas have been only relatively recently administered at all, or at least thoroughly administered, and to say that we are to continue the existing administration surely ignores one very important fact, and that is that the administration up to a few years ago was largely in the hands of Europeans, or under the direct supervision of Europeans who had a natural and strong sympathy with these people.
I call to mind being in the backward area of a Province 10 years or so ago. I shall not name the area, because I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings. It
was a fairly remote backward area, which under the Bill has no exclusion or partial exclusion whatever given to it. When I went there for the first time the local subordinate British officer of the Indian Civil Service took a tremendous interest in the particular tribe among whom I spent a few months. I went back to the same area two years later. The official had been replaced by a most charming and excellent Indian gentleman, in every way efficient, I have no doubt, and a very nice person, but he neither knew nor cared anything whatever about the aboriginals in the area. That was the trouble. The former official enjoyed travelling and camping among them, and shooting with them. Mr. — sat in his office, made up his files and the Banyas and Labour recruiters had full swing. That is a point in which hon. Members on the Labour benches should take a particular interest. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) is not present. He spoke briefly the other night, and told me that he could not be here to-day. He has personal knowledge of aboriginal labour recruitment. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities will know what real hardship is caused in these areas by recruiting for tea gardens in distant lands. These people must have supervision to prevent the grossest exploitation in this respect. Not all the recruiting is exploitation, of course, not by a very long way, but it is a general practice particularly capable of unscrupulous exploitation, particularly by Indians themselves.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) asked whether some of the areas that we have put into our proposed Amendment of the Schedule are not too small to be administratively possible. The answer is no! There is no area in our Schedule as small as one of the areas already in the Government's list. If the areas we have put down are examined with the aid of a map you will find that some of the smaller ones are not isolated as they look on the Order Paper but are contiguous to other areas already included or recommended for official exclusion, so that in effect administratively they would come within larger homogeneous areas. People with very great experience of the administration of these particular areas, people with very much more experience than the Provincial
secretariats which advise the Government, have no doubt whatever as to the case with which these areas could be excluded and administered when excluded.
The Under-Secretary made play with the population of Garwhal. I am not going to reply in detail to his criticism of our Schedule. We did not classify the Garwhali for the purpose of our Amendment as primitive at all. We suggested the exclusion for Garwhal on the ground that the Garwhali are so racially distinct from the people under whom they would come, that they would be happier and better, and much less likely to cause subsequent trouble, if they were excluded at this stage, always bearing in mind that if at a later stage the reforms work well, or these people want it, they can be put back.
The Government's conscience is clearly uneasy on the subject. I consider that the concessions offered of three areas, one of which is already in effect totally excluded, I am reminded, by Snow, another which is already totally excluded in effect by the Indian Ocean, and a third which is of no importance or size, is one that the Government happens to have failed to exclude before only owing to an oversight—those concessions simply are not worth anything. I very much hope that, unless the Government are prepared to indicate that on the Report stage they will give an assurance that they do not intend here and now to close the door which has been open to them for all these years, the Committee will for once in a way, on a matter which involves no principle, divide against the Government on this issue and defeat it.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes. But like others I have been deeply interested in this debate as it has developed, and, if I may say so, particularly interested in the extremely able speech, so full of knowledge and practical information, which has been delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James). I know that other Members who have made a special study of this topic wish to take part in the discussion, and the only contribution which I desire to make at this moment, until I am
a little further informed, is of an entirely general character.
I do not quite understand what is the position either of the Government or of some of my hon. Friends who are criticising the Government. I understood that by this Bill we were conferring the great boon and blessing of self-government upon the democracy and peoples of India; that the educative value of the representative institutions, working as they have done in the West, would in the East be the greatest elevating force and the greatest stabilising and sobering force, that could possibly be applied to the population of India; that there you would find that this sense of responsibility, the grant of the franchise, would bring the people forward very much more rapidly and bridge the gulf which may have been existing between the East and the West. That, I understood, was the position of those who support this Bill; and that the vote has never been given because of fitness to exercise it, but is given as a form of protection, and the more helpless people are, it is argued, the more they stand in need of this form of protection. Now I am frankly puzzled. I hope to have my doubts removed and my mind clarified in the course of this debate but now it appears that these blessings are to be withheld from these alleged primitive peoples.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Since the right hon. Gentleman has charged those of us who are supporters of the Bill with inconsistency—

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have made no charge at all.

Wing-Commander JAMES: As he has, I think, suggested that there is inconsistency on our part, in regard to this particular point at any rate, may I say that we are quite consistent because this proposal does not affect Indian self-government. These peoples are quite distinct from the bulk of the population and my purpose is to urge that they should not be put under domination, as alien as and as yet much less sympathetic than ours. May I also, for the second time beg the right hon. Gentleman not to prostitute a legitimate committee point by using it for a general attack upon the principles of the Bill? There is nothing whatever in this Amendment to justify that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: While I gave way to my hon. and gallant Friend I must point out again that I was making no charge at all and that he has in fact sought to reply to my speech in controversial fashion before I have been able to complete it. However, unabashed by his warnings and unmoved by his appeal I continue, if I may, to continue to put these necessary points. There are, we are told, 22,000,000 people involved in this proposal. We are assured that these people are too primitive to be allowed to share in the advantages and boons of liberty, of responsibility, of the franchise and of the Parliamentary and legislative institutions which you are going to confer on the rest of that vast population. The speeches which we have heard seem to indicate that if these people were included in the ordinary scope of the functions of the Provincial Governments or of the Federal Government their lot would be worse than it will be if they are left outside the scheme. That statement very much disquiets me.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough spoke of the disaster of leaving these 22,000,000 people in unscrupulous Indian hands. Apparently, he contemplates that when the new bodies which we are calling into being have come into existence there will be a far lower range of government and administration in operation than is attained at the present time. My hon. and gallant Friend takes a warm and philanthropic interest in the affairs of these primitive tribes with whom he has come in contact and wishes to save them from the evils which apparently he apprehends. But, on the other hand, we are told of all the blessings which this Bill has to offer and I really do not see how any logical argument can be held on the basis of such a contradiction. It is clear however that there is general agreement, in principle though not in detail, between the Government and the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends. The Government too, by their own exclusions, admit that there are large areas and large populations whose fortunes they will not entrust to these new bodies which they are creating.
The speech of the Under-Secretary seemed to me to admit that these people or some of them at any rate would be better off if they were excluded. He
agreed, partly, with my hon. and gallant Friend that some of them would be much better off if they were left outside this great liberating Measure. One thing which the Under-Secretary said struck me very much. He said that one of the difficulties of leaving out all these classes and districts enumerated in the Amendment was that it would alienate the opinion of the rest of the people of India. I suppose that means that those other people will be jealous at seeing all these districts and all these 22,000,000 people being allowed to continue in their present condition—which is admitted to be better than the condition into which they would be forced under the new system. Apparently it is feared that the people who are not excluded will say, "This is not fair. We are to have all these boons of democratic and modern Western institutions and here are these other people who are to be free from them." Naturally, the people who are in that position will envy the people who are being left alone and who are not to be subjected to the species of ingenious modern mental torments which constitute the higher forms of political thought at the present time.
We ought to know clearly from the Government and the supporters of the Bill whether they consider that the probable condition of these people, as they will be under the operation of the Bill, is worse or is better than their present condition. If their probable future condition under the Bill is regarded as worse than their present condition, then it is quite right to exclude these areas, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will not reject the Amendment. I shall certainly vote to exclude them. I am convinced from the admissions which have been made—and the fact that they are unconscious admissions makes them much more impressive—that the condition of these people will deteriorate under the proposed new system. I am satisfied that the more we can exclude from the operation of the Bill the better. I like this longer list. I like it much better than the Under-Secretary's list. The Under-Secretary proposes to exclude some millions but the Amendment would exclude no fewer than 22,500,000 people. If you have this feeling that you cannot trust the fortunes of these people in the hands of the new administration—to
which you are going to entrust law and order, and every kind of vital function such as those connected with the police and the most difficult tasks of administration—if you think you cannot even trust them with administering the affairs of these primitive people surely you ought to pause. It might be argued that those to whom it is proposed to entrust the administration of these other matters know more about the primitive people than we do. Was not the whole idea of these proposals that Indian opinion was to be brought to bear on such problems? Did we not, hear the Lord President of the Council say how Indians would much prefer people of their own race and creed to white administrators?
I am at a loss to know on which ground the Government stand. Anyhow I know clearly that, for myself, the doubts which I have had all along are more than confirmed by the admissions which we are getting from people supporting the Bill, showing that they know that it will bring a worse form of government to India, and a less reliable form of administration and that they cannot trust these primitive tribes to the care of the new Indian bodies. The great issue of the government of a mighty land and such subjects as irrigation and police and revenue and so forth—all that we are told may be handed over to these new bodies. We are told that they can discharge those functions with perfect security. But when it comes to the administration of the primitive tribes, then sentimental reasons are advanced for taking another course and admissions are made which show that you know that the whole process in which you are engaged, means a great retrogression and decadence in the standard of administration in India to which you have reluctantly consented. I should be very glad indeed if the Under-Secretary were to accept the Amendment, and, even if my hon. and gallant Friend cared to add other districts to it, I should not object. I should not object indeed to including in it the entire scope of the great Indian peninsula. I am certain that the blessings which would be spread thereby would be gratefully received from one end of the continent to the other and really it would be the most happy exit we could find, after all
this trouble and labour from the inconsistencies and contradictions of this Measure.

4.40 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: Though naturally not in agreement with all that he has said, I should like to pay a perfectly genuine compliment to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who has just delivered a most brilliant debating speech. At the risk of being unpopular I should like to say how very refreshing the Committee found his contribution in contrast with orations of the dreary type which we sometimes hear in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly fair debating answer to the points which were put forward by my two hon. Friends behind me. Every argument used by my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway could be extended to the whole field of the franchise in India.

Mr. CADOGAN: I am not concerned in this Amendment with the main principle of the Bill, but the point is that the Government have admitted the principle of excluding certain tribes and, once they have admitted that principle, I want them to apply it in the proper way.

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I was referring not to his speech but to that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing - Commander James), and I think that whether one agrees or disagrees with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman one must in fairness admit that he was right in saying that my hon. and gallant Friend's argument could be extended to a far wider field than the excluded areas. But this is a very big issue and it would not be quite fair to say that the position occupied by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough is the same as the position occupied by the Government—for this reason. There have been, for generations past, ever since we attempted in India a system of real administration, areas corresponding to the excluded areas in the Bill. They have been treated as apart from the other areas in the particular provinces in which they were situated. Under what may be described without offence as a purely paternal government, prior to the reforms,
prior even to the Morley-Minto Constitution, the method of administration in those areas was different from the method of administration in other areas. There were special officers responsible for them. Those Members of the Committee who are seized of what may be called the technical issues here involved will not have failed to notice that a great many of the charge's which my hon. and gallant Friend has brought—with perfect sincerity—are not so much charges against the present Government of India as against the general treatment of these excluded areas.
What do the Government propose to do? The Government in this Schedule propose to name certain areas which in the unanimous opinion of their experts—of the Government of India, I understand, and the Provincial Governments and official circles comprising in most cases the majority of Europeans—are held to be areas suitable for exclusion and roughly corresponding to those areas which both in the immediate and the remote past have been treated in a different way from other areas. But the whole trend of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Welling borough and to some extent of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) was so to widen the areas of exclusion as to raise an entirely different set of problems. They propose not only to apply exclusion in those cases in which it has always been thought necessary, but to extend it to a great number of other tribes and in some cases sub-divisions of tribes. It is the genuine opinion of some of my hon. Friends who undoubtedly have wide experience that these people are in such a backward state that they cannot obtain or are not likely to obtain proper regard from the new government. Therefore, the attack—if it is to be called an attack—of the right hon. Gentleman on my hon. and gallant Friend is justified because the same arguments could be equally applied to some of the more backward people not in the list which my hon. and gallant Friend puts forward himself. He is in a dialectical difficulty, and I do not agree with that argument at all. This is not a party matter, and I hope we shall hear whether hon. Members opposite will support what I am going to say. I think
they will. I believe far mere in assimilation than in isolation. I do not think you want to turn areas into modern Whipsnades where you have picturesque survivals and where Englishmen are able to go out and say, "This is a most interesting ethnological race of people divided by 500 or 1,000 years from the rest of India."

Mr. CADOGAN: That is exactly what the Government are doing.

Earl WINTERTON: In the report of the hon. Member's own committee, they said, on page 109:
The responsibility of Parliament for the backward tracts will not be discharged merely by securing to them protection from exploitation and by preventing those outbreaks which have from time to time occurred within their borders. The principal duty of the administration is to educate these peoples to stand on their own feet, and this is a process which has scarcely begun,
and so on.

Mr. CADOGAN: Will my Noble Friend read on?

Earl WINTERTON: Certainly; it goes on:
Co-ordination of activity and adequate funds are principally required. The typical backward tract is a deficit area, and no provincial legislature is likely to possess either the will or the means to devote special attention to its particular requirements.
That is where the present Schedule comes in.

Mr. CADOGAN: I was referring to the end of the paragraph, where it says:
Only if responsibility for the backward tracts is entrusted to the Centre, does it appear likely that it will be adequately discharged.

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, but, as far as I know, there is no recommendation in the hon. Gentleman's report which would extend the definition of backward areas to the tribes and districts to which it is extended by the Amendment for which he is responsible. May I also point out another matter? It has been suggested in the Debate that this particular Schedule goes completely beyond the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. It goes contrary to them in one sense, that the Committee suggested that the matter should be dealt with by Order in-Council. I do not know what the Government's attitude on this point will be, but if they are prepared to do that,
I shall have no objection. It is, however, clear that my hon. Friends who are responsible for the Amendment would not be satisfied by any Order-in-Council which did not go nearly or entirely the length of their Amendment.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I hope the Noble Lord will not misrepresent us. What we have said is that this matter has not been surveyed.

Earl WINTERTON: There is no question of misrepresentation. I said that I understood from the speeches of my hon. Friends that they would not be content with any alteration of the existing Schedule, whether by Order-in-Council or otherwise, that did not go nearly or entirely the length which their Amendment goes; in other words, that their Amendment represents the object at which they are aiming. That raises a big question of principle, and I say that it would be impossible to exclude the areas which are placed in this Amendment to the Schedule without administrative difficulties of the greatest magnitude. You have a small district here surrounded entirely by administration districts, and 20 miles away another slightly larger excluded area, and it would be almost impossible—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am most anxious to ascertain where my Noble Friend himself stands in this matter. Assuming that all these administrative difficulties could be overcome, would it be in accordance with his inclinations to allow these larger areas to be excluded?

Earl WINTERTON: No. My inclination is against having a large number of excluded areas. I believe that, except in the case of the areas already referred to in the Schedule and possibly one or two others such as those which the Government have already offered to consider, it would be in the interests of the Province as a whole and of the tribes themselves to be administered under the ordinary administration. I think we have to remember that we have put this Bill up, and this Committee has by its action, which I cannot criticise, put a very heavy responsibility upon both the Governor-General and the Governors. I think it would be greatly adding to those responsibilities to enlarge the excluded areas as proposed in this Amendment.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough is probably one of the prime authorities in this matter, but my experience of this House and this Committee tells me that it is not always safe to trust the greatest authorities on particular subjects to take a wholly common sense view of the situation, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend, who has made a personal study of this question and whose sympathy with these peoples we all recognise, is suggesting something which is administratively impracticable and also undesirable from the point of view of the interests of those people themselves.
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I am making a personal attack on him when I say that I very much deprecate the references he made—perhaps I was wrong in reading a particular meaning into those references—to the officials in India, whether European or Indian. In the long years during which I had something to do with the administration of India I never saw any sign in the Government of India, in Provincial Governments, or in the officials of those Governments, whether Indian or British, of anything but complete sympathy with the excluded areas. I hope the Government will not alter the big general principle. Whether they think it wise or not to make a change on the question of the Orders-in-Council is a different matter. As a member of the Joint Select Committee, I cannot but support, as I think we all do, whatever may be our views on the Amendment, the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, but supposing that Order-in-Council were changed in the direction wanted by my two hon. Friends, would they be willing to accept that?

4.54 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord, if I heard him aright, said he was going to brighten up the Debate.

Earl WINTERTON: I never said anything of the sort. I never made the remotest reference to that. I paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Epping for the manner in which he had brightened up the Debate, and I am prepared in advance to pay tribute to the speech to which we are about to listen from the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would call in aid, against the arguments of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the views and acts of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester when he wars Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Twenty-nine years ago, the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for Epping was pushing through a Bill exactly like this for South Africa, and he excluded from the South African settlement the three areas of Bechuanaland, Swaziland, and Basutoland for precisely the same reasons that we are asking the Government to exclude these areas from India. Those reasons were that under the Constitution which we gave to South Africa there were no votes for the Bechuanas, the Swazis, and the Basutos. Therefore, we said we would exclude them and reserve the administration of those areas. Exactly the same arguments apply to these areas. These people have no votes, and, therefore, if they come under a Constitution with which they have no connection whatsoever, they should be excluded. If they had manhood suffrage, I would not say anything about it, but they have no votes whatever.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) spoke of large masses of the population of these primitive tribes as being divided up among the other populations, that they were, as it were, mottled in the distribution of population. Do I understand that these people, because of their primitive character, would be deprived of the chance of obtaining the franchise, even if they lived in districts where the franchise and the ordinary reforms were operating?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They all belong to classes which are not enfranchised. When the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the South African Bill, I wish he had also excluded the Trans Kei. I want to save these people in India from precisely the things from which the right hon. Gentleman saved those tribes in South Africa. It is exactly the same principle. I would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), not merely on the presentation of his case, but on the whole way in which it has been supported. Never on any occasion during the passage of this Bill has an Amendment
to the Bill been better prepared and organised. The objections raised by the Government really amount to two. In the first place, there is the administrative difficulty, and in the second place they say that there will be other people in these areas besides the aboriginals who would be shut off from the normal constitutional development in India and that they would object to being excluded from this Bill.
With regard to the administrative difficulties, let us observe that they come entirely from the Administration. The Administration's views on this particular question must, I think, be to a certain extent discounted. The Administration are to a certain extent in the dock, and they have not perhaps done all that they might have done for these backward tribes in India. At least, that is the argument in favour of increasing the number of excluded areas. Is it not natural that, when they have drafted their Bill and got their reasons accepted by the India Office here, when they have got the solution that they wish for, they will find every objection to excluding other tribes and increasing the number of scheduled areas? I think it is almost inevitable. They have a vested interest in the present position, and any change would naturally be one that they would counter by talking of the administrative difficulties.
The other objection is much more serious. The objection of the Under-Secretary of State was that in each of these areas there was a large number of Hindus or Mohammedans who would otherwise have their rights as citizens in the Provinces and elsewhere who would object to these areas being excluded. I do not believe there are many people in India who would not welcome exclusion from this Bill. But I am perfectly certain that the aboriginal inhabitants, these backward tribes, would object to a man to separation from the British Raj to be put under this Bill. The people whom we are asking help for now are people who unanimously would prefer British rule to this Bill. I think it is very probable that the others would as well.
If we have a certain number, of people, whether in India or elsewhere, who want unanimously to remain in the British Empire under British rule, have we the right to deprive them of their citizenship and of the rights which they enjoy to-day?
We are treating all these backward tribes as though they were chattels who could be handed over either to the Indians or to Princes. The principle is all wrong. If people who have once had the advantages of British rule want to remain under British rule, we have no right to deprive them of it. That applies to the whole of India. If the whole of India objects to this Bill and wants the status quo then she is perfectly justified in demanding the status quo. It applies infinitely more to people who have no votes. Their interests must come first, and not administrative difficulties or the possibility of offending some Poona Brahmins who may live in the area.
The real reason why these people want to retain British rule is perfectly simple. If they are taken away from direct British rule, their land would be alienated, and they would be recruited for the tea plantations and elsewhere. Ordinarily labour recruiting is bad enough, but if you are dealing with people who have no education then labour recruiting becomes one of the most cruel forms of exploitation imaginable. They are taken away from their families, whom they never see again. They sign contracts which they know nothing about, and they are practically the slaves of the Khidmutgar. He is the man who is the foreman on the job. They all get in debt to him and can never get out of debt, and consequently they are enslaved for life. That sort of thing is bad enough anywhere in India, but when you are dealing with these absolutely savage people and you leave them at the mercy of the labour recruiter you are depriving them of their real right to live. It is not a question of exclusion or assimilation but of protecting these people until by the method of direct British rule they have sufficient education to be able to stand up for themselves and protect themselves by the vote.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) rushed like a rogue elephant into a perfectly orderly part of the jungle—not only like a rogue elephant, but a very provocative rogue elephant, because he provoked the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), usually a most orderly elephant, into being disorderly—before that
—I will not carry the simile any further or I may be thought to be rude—we were discussing the interests of the backward tribes, and I want to get back to the speech of the Under-Secretary, the only speech so far which has been really against the Amendment. I do not want to attack the Under-Secretary too bitterly for views which I do not believe he holds. I believe he is really with us in the spirit, like the Almighty, of whom the Scottish Minister said "The Almighty is forced to do many things in his official capacity which he would not do as a private individual." We are, after all, completely in the hands of the India Office. The hon. Gentleman never said that he was satisfied that the interests of the backward tribes would be adequately protected under the arrangement as suggested in the Bill. He chose his own examples when he went through this list. The Khondmals is almost solidly aboriginal. The hon. Gentleman appealed to the census figures, entirely omitting to mention the fact that the census is done on a linguistic basis which is not accepted as a guide by expert anthropologists. I think the Amendment goes too far. I am grateful to the Government for the areas that are included in the Sixth Schedule of the Bill, but I feel that one must admit that the situation is not satisfactory, that it never really has been looked into. I want to appeal to my hon. Friend on this ground. The Movers said that the people behind this Amendment are loyal supporters of the Government. I suggest that for once the Government make some concessions to their friends.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: What about Lancashire?

Mr. NICHOLSON: I shall come to other backward tracts later on. I suggest that concessions have been made to every form of critic and enemy of the Government, and I think that supporters of the Government are due for a little consideration. This is a political question rather than an anthropological question. The anthropologists are united in the sense of this Amendment. The answers must be political; the case is a political case. The case is not that we accuse Indian political opinion of being hostile or neglectful with regard to the backward tribes, but that it is not fair firstly to the tribes, secondly to the provincial legislatures, to place them
in charge of the legislatures. The Government have admitted as much. The real basis of the case is not that there will be wilful neglect, but that inevitably economies will be made when it comes to spending more on an area. Orissa is a deficit Province at the best of times. I cannot think that the future of a deficit area in a deficit Province will be particularly rosy. I should be very sorry indeed to have to vote against the Government on this question, but I cannot see that a promise at any rate to give this matter serious consideration would impinge on any provisions of the Bill, nor can I see that a promise to extend these areas is committing the Government to anything final. Any inclusion in the Sixth Schedule can always be gone back on at a moment's notice. I shall vote against the Government if the Under-Secretary does not make any further concession either in detail or in his attitude. If he fails to make a concession, I hope that there will be the largest possible vote against the Government.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. CADOGAN: Perhaps I might shorten the proceedings in Committee if I made a suggestion now to the Under-Secretary in view of the fact that this Amendment is not, like so many, either a suggestion to insert something in the Bill or to take something out. It is merely a suggestion to improve on what appears in the Bill. In view of the fact that my Amendment has a very considerable measure of support from various sections might I suggest that the Under-Secretary should reconsider the matter before the Report stage and see whether it would not be possible to retain some power of adding to the Schedule. If he can hold out any hopes of that kind, I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE:: If the Debate is to go on, I want to say that, like other Members of the Committee, I have considered this matter and found it one of the most difficult to come to a decision about, and that largely because I share the experience of others of being in the position of knowing nothing personally about these excluded areas, with one or two small exceptions. That naturally must be the position of most
Members of the Committee. But the difficulty I am in is this. While I entirely agree that the Statutory Commission and the Joint Select Committee have not been able to give the full and detailed consideration which is perhaps required to come to a decision on this matter, I do not quite know what we are to gain or to whom we can refer if we delay. The Amendment as I see it does include in it certain areas which to me at any rate make it appear impossible of acceptance. I could not possibly conceive that anybody who knew India at all, even if they knew nothing about the backward tribes, should include such districts as Darjeeling and the Surat District. These are immense areas in which there cannot be more than a fractional proportion of the population classed as aboriginal. To exclude in one Amendment enormous areas, which I know well personally, and which are inhabited by hundreds of thousands—for all I know mllions—of people who are closely engaged in industry and agriculture and in daily touch by cablegram with firms in this country, to exclude them, because there are some aboriginals, is carrying the proposal too far. For that reason I find it impossible to support the Amendment as it stands, but that does not mean that I am entirely satisfied that the whole subject has been thoroughly gone into. I am not. Further than that, I am in another difficulty. Suppose we defer the question, to whom can we go for information on a matter of this kind? The only people really capable of giving Parliament any information are the officials of the Government of India and the Provincial Governments, and it seems to me that, whatever course we take, we are bound on this matter above all others to depend on the authority and the opinion of the men on the spot. I assume that the Under-Secretary, in speaking for the Government, is giving the House the concensus of opinion of the Provincial Governments and the Government of India.

Lord E. PERCY: I have no objection to getting more facts from the Provincial Governments or British officials, but what we want are facts and not merely opinions. It is the facts that we have not got.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: On that point, my noble Friend and I are entirely at one. I was trying to make clear that in the end the only people who can give the facts are the British officials. There is no dispute about that. If the Schedule in the Bill is the opinon of those officials, I do not see that we shall get very much further by delay. As I see it, the Bill contains the view of the Government of India, and I do not see what we are to gain by referring the matter back to them and saying: "Are you sure these are your views? Should there not be something more? "I understand that they have had this Schedule put before them. The Under-Secretary dealt with a number of the proposals in the Amendment and showed how impracticable they were. I can only deal with the one or two which I have mentioned and which do not appear to me to be desirable to put into the Schedule. Therefore, I get back to the difficulty that if we defer it we shall only arrive at the same opinion as we have now, and I do not know to whom we can apply further to get the matter cleared up.
We must be very careful in this matter not to forget the enormous responsibilities which are already placed upon the Governor-General and the Governors. I am well aware that it is a matter of argument whether we have not already put too much responsibility upon them. At any rate, if we realise that every matter connected with areas which are excluded will have to be a matter of personal examination and decision by the Governor, we must appreciate that it is undesirable to expand that work and responsibility more than is necessary. I do not want to oppose further consideration of the matter if it will result in further authentic information being given, but as matters stand I do not see what is to be gained by it.

5.20 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): My hon. Friend who has just spoken has rightly expressed the difficulty in which the Committee is when he pointed out that no reason has been given for believing that if the Government think again about this question they will arrive at any different opinion from that which is embodied in the Schedule. I am not thinking about the comparatively small additions, some of which
have been mentioned—and there might possibly be one or two added to those—but what my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said that the Committee wants, not opinions or reconsidered opinions, but facts upon which the Committee can form its own opinion. It is, I think, plain to everybody that the Amendment, owing to its length and having regard to some of the areas it is proposed to include in it, cannot possibly be accepted as it is. I do not think that anybody, not even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), expects that. If we were to take the Amendment and deal with the different areas one by one, the Committee would have to sit as a sort of Royal Commission, a committee of inquiry, without any facilities for having papers and information before us, and we should have to include some new places and exclude others. Manifestly, the Committee cannot to-day, or possibly at any time, embark upon an operation of that kind. At the same time, it is plain that the Committee, or those Members of the Committee who are present, are in some difficulty—that is to say, the Members who, generally speaking, support this Bill and are in favour of making it the best measure it can be.
I fully understand the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), whom we are glad to see after a prolonged absence, or, perhaps, I ought to say, delighted to hear after a prolonged silence. He is too old a Parliamentary hand not to have taken advantage of the opportunity of baiting the Government and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough, and he holding us all up as the victims of inconsistency while he himself is the only steady consistent mind in the Committee, always prepared to give effect to a constructive and sane policy. My right hon. Friend, I know, will not object to my saying that the Government must always bear in mind his point of view, but the Committee listened to his speech with great delight. It was a very good debating speech, but it did not get near the merits of this question as to which areas should be excluded because those who support the Amendment are moved by a different principle from that which my right hon. Friend follows, namely, that it is bad for anybody to be under
the new form of Government in India. We do not accept that view, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) who supports the Amendment, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan). Nobody accepts it except, indeed, the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who made a speech on very much the same lines as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping.
In these circumstances, the Government do not wish to take up the position of being deaf to all appeals far information. It is very easy to represent us as unable to give way to anything because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here. We are very vulnerable. We are doing our best in the absence of my right hon. Friend. I suggest to the Committee that with a view to giving further information we shall withdraw the Schedule as it exists to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members had better wait before they cheer and hear the whole of what I have to say. We shall withdraw the Schedule as it stands, and then we shall prepare an Order-in-Council which will be submitted to the House in due time with all the necessary information giving the areas which it is proposed to exclude. The Order-in-Council will be issued before the grant of provincial autonomy, and it will be one to which additions may not subsequently be made and the provisions of Clause 91, which will need some amendment, will substantially apply.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Additions may not be made except in the House?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Except in the House in the first instance. When the first Order-in-Council is made it will not be possible to add other excluded areas by subsequent Orders-in-Council. Once the Order is adopted and decided by the House it will be the final settlement of the question, and it will be subject to the provisions of Clause 91 of the Bill. That course will have the advantage of giving the House the facts which my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings desires. Now this is the observation with which some of my hon. Friends may not be so well satisfied: I want the Committee to understand in the most explicit way that my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary sees no reason whatever to anticipate that, except for a few comparatively minor additions, in addition to the one or two which he has mentioned, there will be any additions which we shall feel justified in offering to the House as fit to go into the category of excluded areas. There has been a certain amount of argument which would lead one to suppose that all that is necessary to justify an area being an excluded area is to show that the people are backward or helpless or illiterate. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme described some of the disadvantages under which the backward peoples labour at the present time, but he did not seem to recognise that that was not a very good argument for keeping them under the very same system which produces the conditions of which he complains.
We are making no promises and holding out no prospects of any substantial addition to the category of excluded areas. I am justified in saying that because we are satisfied with the very full examination which has been given to this question—and may I say, not only by anthropologists, because you cannot decide this question merely by anthropological considerations; it depends partly upon the conditions of the people concerned and partly upon the possibility of applying ordinary administrative measures to the particular tract or tribe. The Government are convinced that they have a good case, and they are anxious to submit it to the House. We will lay a Paper before the House with all the information and facts and all the necessary references before the Order-in-Council is made. The House will have the fullest opportunity of forming its own opinion upon the facts, which will be laid before it in the most convenient form. I would also ask the Committee to assent to this further condition. It is understood that we shall not have another prolonged Debate on this question on the Report stage, because I do not think that that would be reasonable. If the Committee assents to this proposal, we will have this discussion after the Bill is passed and before provincial autonomy is brought into operation. I hope that the suggestion I have made will meet with the approval of all parties and show that the Government are anxious to be as reasonable as possible.
What I have said will cover not only the totally excluded areas, but the partially excluded areas.

Wing-Commander JAMES: I am not well acquainted with Orders-in-Council, whether closed or open, but will the paper to be laid before the House explain the facts relating to the areas we have included in the Amendment, or only the areas which are already included by the Government?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The intention is that the facts shall be stated in reference to all the areas which it has been suggested should be included.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that the Attorney-General has made a very important concession. The hon. Member opposite urged him to make a concession to his friends, on the basis, I suppose, that one good turn deserves another, after those friends have for so long supported a matter in regard to which we can now see what their interior misgivings must be. It is only reciprocating a service rendered for the Government to change their position during the course of the Debate and make a concession to them. But better than making concessions to foes or friends is making concessions to reason, and I suppose that the reasons which have been adduced from all quarters during this discussion have led the Government into the course they have taken in withdrawing the Schedule altogether and taking it away for further consideration, with a promise that it is to be discussed in another Parliament where an Order-in-Council is to be brought forward regulating these matters.
I think that is a very remarkable step for the Government to take, and I really find it difficult to know why they have taken it. The anthropological party, which has taken the field to-day, is a very highbrow, docile, well-meaning association, but not numerically very powerful. I confess that I sympathise with the anthropological party. I, too, am an anthropologist, in my way, only, I am bound to say, I take as much interest in the fortunes of the white people in India, for instance, as I would in these backward tribes. I feel just as much disturbed about their police and security being handed over to a Government
which I do not trust as the anthropological party represented here this afternoon are about the handing over of these backward areas to a Government which they do not trust, so that really we are almost in the same party in this respect. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) described me as a "rogue elephant," but I certainly have not gone so far this afternoon in my criticisms of the Government as he has in accusing the Under-Secretary of gravely misleading the House. That is a very serious charge to make against the Under-Secretary, and I am bound to say that if the Under-Secretary were to retaliate in the kind of language which the hon. Member has applied to me we might really have to call for the intervention of the Chair in order to preserve the dignity and sedateness of our discussions. But I want to bring before the Committee the new position—

Mr. NICHOLSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman finished with me? I should like to make a personal explanation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: After I have finished the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak and will not be confined, even, to making it a personal explanation. We are in Committee, and he will certainly be able to explain his point of view and explain the charges which he made against the Under-Secretary. I want the Committee to see where we stand as the result of the concessions which have been announced. The whole of this question of the excluded areas is to be put off to another Parliament. That is the effect. The whole question is to be shelved and put back to another Parliament. I do not think the Government need have taken this very serious step. They tell us that they want to settle this Indian question once and for all, to reach a solution, to give peace and security, to let people know what their fate is to be; yet here are these 22,000,000 people whose fate is involved, all the people in the 30 districts enumerated in the Amendment and the others enumerated in the Government Schedule, and no one is to know which are to be in and which are to be out.
Perhaps the Attorney-General will give me his attention. He complained just now of my prolonged silence. May I not complain of his continued volubility? I certainly should not complain if only we
had the advantage of hearing him, because when he is addressing us it is deeply interesting to study the forensic methods which he so skilfully employs. Out of the 22,000,000 people affected, the Government proposals affect about 10,000,000 or 12,000,000. All those people will remain uncertain what their fate will be, not only during this Parliament but until Provincial Governments are set up sometime during the next Parliament. We have no idea of what the next Parliament will be and what treatment will then be applied to this subject. We have plunged 22,000,000 people in India into absolute uncertainty as to their fate. They will not know which districts are to be in and which out. Look at the admission which is made—that these districts, many of them, must, be excluded, because the new Governments which we are setting up cannot be trusted to administer these backward peoples. These unfortunate people will not know whether they are to be reserved for the protection of the Imperial representative, the Governor, or whether they are to be left to take their chance in one of the provincial administrations.
As between the mover of the Amendment and the Government there is a matter of 10,000,000 souls. The Government agree that 12,000,000 must have protection, but the other 10,000,000, because they are mixed up in particular Provinces, cannot be protected on account of administrative difficulties; though we know that these 10,000,000 are the type of people the Government admit ought to be protected from the inferior administration or exploitation which they will receive at the hands of the bodies which are to be set up. The 10,000,000 are to be left without the vote, because they are all too poor to qualify. They are without the slightest protection given by the vote or by any protection which comes to them through the exercise of the Governor's authority. That is indeed a forlorn position—neither the Imperial Raj nor the vote. Ten million people of the type specially indicated as requiring particular protection are to be relegated to that fate, but the whole 22,000,000 people share the uncertainty, because it will not be known precisely which of them will be in and which will be out.
To leave this over to be settled by an Order-in-Council in another Parliament
is the most extraordinary step to take, and it only shows that if there had been a little more support the Government could have been turned from this misguided policy. Why, even before a handful of anthropologists they run away and withdraw their Schedule and adjourn the matter to the Greek Kalends—to another Parliament. It is an extraordinary situation. I am amazed that the Government should have taken such a step. I had no idea that anything would be promised which would go beyond a promise of reconsideration on the Report stage; but to say you are going to put the other thing off till another Parliament—I never heard of such a process in legislation. It only shows the want of confidence and of conviction which lies behind those who are conducting the Bill. They have made up their minds that on the whole the best thing is to ram it through, and their followers have put their heads down and devoted themselves to this butting process. But now, in this matter, the Government have lost their nerve. They are frightened of the attacks directed upon them, by the attacks of their friends the anthropologists and so they have in this case gone back and passed all this matter over to another Parliament. That is a very far-reaching step to take, and if it were not that I am most anxious not to delay the proceedings I should certainly ask leave to Report Progress.
I do not remember this procedure ever being adopted before, though I have sat on many Bills and have heard concessions promised in Committee to be settled on the Report stage, the Report stage being delayed, if necessary, for another month till the matter was settled. Here we throw 22,000,000 people into the melting pot and leave their fate to a new Parliament. To do that and still press this Bill through is to take up an attitude which is altogether unreasonable. I cannot help thinking that probably the Attorney-General and his colleague took this decision with a little less premeditation than serious Government departures require. I have always understood that it was the desire of the Government to have this Indian question settled as a whole, and surely this is an integral part of the Bill. It is not a, new question. It is true that the Amendment has only just been put down, but the Government have had their Schedules on the Paper
for weeks and weeks, and for months the matter has been in their hands. Why have they only just now discovered these uncertainties which make it necessary for them to put off the solution of this question to another Parliament? How can they leave this aspect of Indian affairs in that complete confusion into which it is now thrown?
I protest against the procedure. The proper course for the Government to adopt is to promise to reconsider the matter upon Report stage; to delay the Report stage until they have made up their minds about it and then to bring it before Parliament in the ordinary way. To say that this Parliament is to jettison large chunks of this Bill and leave them to be dealt with in another Parliament, is, I should have thought, a most incredibly clumsy and improper procedure. I strongly urge that the Attorney-General should reconsider what he has said and promise to make the decision of the Government plain upon the Report stage. Those who dislike these present proposals should have the courage of their convictions and give effect to them by their votes—they have no chance of beating the Government, the Government have 200 or 300 people who are ready to vote for whatever they say or do, so there is no danger. If the anthropological party have the courage to go into the Lobby, which I greatly doubt, for they have been wriggling and twisting for the last quarter of an hour trying to find an excuse to get out of their position, that will be the best way and the only constitutional and Parliamentary way of bringing their influence to bear on the Government and getting the matter dealt with on the Report stage. The Report stage can perfectly well be adjourned until after Whitsuntide, till the Government can confront us with a reasoned, well-thought-out and final proposal upon a matter affecting 22,000,000 people and one which is inherent in the general structure of the Bill.

5.44 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope the Committee will allow me to make one or two observations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has repeated over and over again references to "the next Parliament." There are many things under this Bill that have to be done by Order in Council and a
great many of them will be done in this Parliament, and I see no reason why this matter should not be dealt with in this Parliament. I do not know where my right hon. Friend got his assumption that it will have to be done in the next Parliament.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sanguine if he imagines that provincial government is going to be brought into being in India within the next 12 months.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I said that the intention was to do this before provincial autonomy was brought into operation—before, not after. I see no reason why it should not be done in this Parliament. A great deal of the eloquence of my right hon. Friend was unnecessarily expended, and he strikes me as someone who has been baulked of his prey. He hoped to make a speech pointing out how the Government were relying upon the big battalions and how obstinate they were, even in face of the closely reasoned speeches of some of their best friends. The right hon. Gentleman forgot the course which, I hope, will justify the Government's decision as well as meet the views of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend protests that we have been unreasonable;; well, we must put up with his strictures in the hope that, although we cannot satisfy him, we have been able to satisfy the Committee.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot accept the statement of the Attorney-General that this matter could be dealt with in the lifetime of the present Parliament. There is no certainty about that. If the Government have that intention, and if they could give us an assurance that it would be dealt with towards the end of the present Session, that would invalidate any portion of my argument, whether closely reasoned or not, which depended upon the matter being held over until another Parliament. I certainly think that we ought to have a pledge from the Government that the matter will be dealt with in the present Session. It is most undesirable that the matter should continue upon the present basis.

5.47 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: This matter ought to be cleared up, because
it affects 22,000,000 people. One remembers how, in regard to Ireland, although only 4,000,000 people were concerned, it was necessary to have longer and more protracted debates. In all that the Attorney-General has just said, I see no reason why this should not be dealt with in this Parliament. The present position is not, good enough, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that, if we are to leave this truncated Measure to the chances of another Session, we ought to have an assurance from the Government that it will be dealt with. In regard to the return which the Committee have been promised, not a word has been said whether the return will contain information as to whether these classes of people desire to be left in their present position or desire to come into the new government. It is a matter of vital importance to us that we should know whether these 22,000,000 people, who have required special protection in the past, desire to be placed under the new government or prefer to remain under the direct control of the British Government. The Committee ought not to allow the matter to be withdrawn because of the submission of the Attorney-General that the matter will be dealt with by Order in Council, until we know that that Order in Council will be made before the present Parliament comes to an end.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. CADOGAN: I do not know whether my part in the Debate has been that of a wriggling, twisting anthropologist, but I know that there has been an attempt on my part to champion the cause of tribesmen with whom I have come into contact, and of whom some of my hon. Friends who have supported the Amendment have far greater knowledge than I. I am prepared to accept the concession which the Government have offered through the Attorney-General, because I believe it will be the best chance of obtaining further concessions for the tribesmen for whom I have been speaking. I trust also that it will mean a re-examination of the whole case. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

5.50 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: I have to explain that the Amendment proposes to leave out the words from the beginning of line 9 to the end of the Schedule, and to add a long series of words which are on the Order Paper. The question which is before, and will be put to the Committee is, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule.

5.51 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: On a point of Order. I am not sure whether the Committee appreciate that the proposal I have made requires that the Schedule shall be omitted in toto. If that proposal is agreed to, the Committee will negative the Motion which you, Sir Dennis, have put. If the Committee are not prepared to accept the proposal which I have made, then the withdrawal of the Amendment having been refused, it will be necessary for the Government to adhere to the Schedule and to ask the Committee to affirm the inclusion of the words which you have put to the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: On that point of Order. The Attorney-General is quite right. I approach the question from a slightly different angle. There is very little at issue upon this Amendment. The main issue presumably will arise on the question, "That this Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."

5.53 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I venture to ask very respectfully for your guidance of the Committee, because there is a danger owing to the form in which the Question is put, of a misunderstanding as to which way hon. Members should vote in order to express their perfectly clear opinions. I would also ask personally for an explanation as to the course that I should adopt. I desire to vote for the carrying of the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), the question which we have been discussing all the afternoon. Would you kindly advise me, as I am sure your advice would be of great assistance to myself and to some of my hon. Friends to enable us to discharge our duty? We do not want to vote in the wrong Division Lobby by mistake.

The CHAIRMAN: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman at once. He should vote "No", the question before the Committee
being that certain words, proposed by the Mover of the Amendment to be left out, stand part of the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman wishes them to be left out, and he will vote, therefore, that they do not stand part.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is exactly what I thought.

Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. May I ask the Attorney-General whether

there is any specific undertaking that this matter will be dealt with in this Session?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 9, stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 36.

Division No. 179.]
AYES.
[5.55 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mabane, William


Albery, Irving James
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Banfield, John William
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKle, John Hamilton


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Batey, Joseph
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mainwaring, William Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Glossop, C. W. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Goldle, Noel B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Blindell, James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Martin, Thomas B.


Bossom, A. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Boulton, W. W.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brass, Captain Sir William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mailer, Sir Richard James


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Groves, Thomas E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Butler, Richard Austen
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moss, Captain H. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harris, Sir Percy
Munro, Patrick


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Christie, James Archibald
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Paling, Wilfred


Clarke, Frank
Hicks, Ernest George
Patrick, Colin M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peake, Osbert


Cleary, J. J.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Penny, Sir George


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Percy, Lord Eustace


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Petherick, M.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hurd, Sir Percy
Potter, John


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cross, R. H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Daggar, George
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kerr, J. Campbell
Rickards, George William


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dickle, John P.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Dobble, William
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Doran, Edward
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rothschild, James A. de


Drewe, Cedric
Law, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)
Lawson, John James
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dunglass, Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Leonard, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Edwards, Charles
Lewis, Oswald
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Little, Graham, Sir Ernest
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sandys, Duncan


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Savery, Samuel Servington


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Selley, Harry R.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Shute, Colonel Sir John
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
West, F. R.


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Sugdan, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Thorne, William James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Tinker, John Joseph
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Somervell, Sir Donald
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Train, John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Spens, William Patrick
Turton, Robert Hugh
Withers, Sir John James


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)



Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stourton, Hon. John J.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Sir Victor Warrender and




Commander Southby.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir William Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Pike, Cecil F.


Atholl, Duchess of
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Remer, John R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fuller, Captain A. C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Greene, William P. C.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n. S.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hales, Harold K.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Browne, Captain A. C.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Wayland, Sir William A.


Carver, Major William H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wells, Sydney Richard


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Levy, Thomas
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Marsden, Commander Arthur



Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Bracken.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."

6.5 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand from the remarks which fell from the Attorney-General that it is the intention of the Government to withdraw this Schedule, so I presume that, when the Question is put from the Chair, the Government will vote against the Schedule. I heard the Attorney-General in the course of his speech speak as if there were some suggestion of an agreement or a bargain that, if the Government made this concession and withdrew the Schedule, the matter would not be raised and there would not be a long debate on the Report stage. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend said that; in fact, everyone beard him say that. I am sorry he has forgotten it already.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have not forgotten. What I did say was that I hoped I might say that it was the hope that there would not be a debate on the Report stage as well as on the Order-in-Council.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. and learned Friend could not have been thinking the matter out clearly, because, if the Government withdraw the Schedule at this stage in Committee, there will be nothing in the pages of the Bill on the Report stage. It only shows the sort of haphazard manner in which these things are being carried through.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to interrupt, but my right hon. Friend is not accurate. Clause 91 is still in the Bill; Clause 91 deals with this matter; and, therefore, there would be plenty of opportunity for a long debate on the Report stage.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am relieved to that extent, because undoubtedly this is not a matter which should be the subject of any bargain in that respect, and I think it is always a good thing to make it quite clear, because otherwise we get reproaches about not keeping engagements or understandings arising at a later stage. I propose to vote for the retention of the Schedule, inadequate as it undoubtedly is. I should have been glad to see it largely extended and voted in that sense, but, such as it is, I think it must remain in the Bill unless the Government are here and now prepared to give us an undertaking that the matter will be dealt with before the end of the present Session. If we can get an undertaking that the Order-in-Council dealing with this subject will be brought forward during the present Session, I should be perfectly prepared to assent to the proposal that the Sixth Schedule should be withdrawn, but failing that I think we must protest against leaving this matter in a condition indefinite in point of time and uncertain in point of fact when it affects the well-being of 22,000,000 people. I hope we may hear from the Government that the undertaking will be given that we
shall have this Order-in-Council before us in the form which the Government consider finally appropriate before the end of the Session.

6.9 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: On a point of Order. You have heard, Sir Dennis, what the Attorney-General said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—that the House on the Report stage could fully discuss this matter on Clause 91. I do not know whether you have Clause 91 before you, but it says:
In this Act the expressions 'excluded area' and 'partially excluded area' mean respectively the areas specified in Part I and Part II of the Sixth Schedule to this Act.
The point that I want to put before you—

The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member proposing to ask me what can be done on Report?

Sir B. PETO: I want to ask you whether as a general rule it would be possible on the Committee stage or any other stage of the Bill to debate the question on a Clause worded as that Clause is, if there is no such Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not called upon to give a general Ruling on a point which does not arise. I can give no Ruling on Clause 91, because we have passed it as far as the Committee is concerned. I can give no Ruling on Clause 91 on Report, because it has nothing to do with me.

Sir B. PETO: Will you allow me to address the Committee for a moment on that point in support of what my right hon. Friend has said? It is very desirable that the Committee should know where it stands. We have had from the Attorney-General what amounts to a pledge that, even if this Schedule is withdrawn, we shall have full opportunity to discuss the matter on Report stage. It appears to me from the wording of the Clause that that would be quite impossible, because it commences by referring to a Schedule which, on the hypothesis now before the Committee, it is proposed to leave out of the Bill, so that we shall have a truncated Bill before us with a Clause 91 in it the whole meaning of which is to specify that certain excluded
or partially excluded areas are such areas as are specified in the two parts of the Sixth Schedule to the Bill. If there is no such Schedule to the Bill, I hold at any rate that the House will certainly not be in a position to debate the matter at all. There is no object in the Clause being there if there is no Schedule. There is no meaning in the Clause unless the Schedule is either left in the Bill or amended. The Government have refused to amend it at this stage, and now propose to take it out, and therefore, if we want to settle this matter while this great question, which has now been debated for a long while, is before this House—this House for certain, not some other House in another Parliament—we must leave this Schedule in the Bill.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we must have an answer from the Government to the question which has been put. The Attorney-General, in the hearing of all of us, referred us to a particular Clause in the Bill, but when that Clause is examined it is found to stand upon the Sixth Schedule, which is now to be withdrawn. What is the Attorney-General's position with regard to this second thought, so hastily adopted when he was convicted of the first haphazard statement? What is his position now in regard to his second happy thought?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend must, if he desires to do so, misunderstand me, but I do not think anything I have said is capable of misunderstanding. I expressed the view some quarter of an hour ago that there should not be a Debate on the Report stage on this matter as well as on the Order-in-Council. On that my right hon. Friend pointed out that there weuld be no Schedule on Report, and therefore no opportunity of debating it on Report stage, whether he wanted it or not. I called attention to the fact that Clause 91 will still remain in the Bill. That was not a promise that we should have a full Debate. I am still of opinion that it is better not to have a Debate on two occasions. It would be necessary, obviously, to move Amendments to Clause 91 to make it fit in with the new situation if this Schedule is omitted from the Bill.

Mr. BRACKEN: Ah!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As I said when I was making my original statement, in spite of my impulsive Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), as to the question whether we were promised a Debate on this question this Session, I can give no such promise, if only for the reason that at the moment I am not at all informed whether we could possibly collect all the information necessary to give the House what it desires in the way of facts about these backward tracts. I do hope the Committee will allow us to decide this question whether the Schedule should be left in the Bill or not, in view of what has been said, and will let us proceed with the Bill under the arrangement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly am not at all satisfied with what has been said. The Attorney-General, with tremendous authority, swept away my contention that we were in all human probability adjourning this matter to another Parliament. It is generally agreed, I think—it is common opinion—that we ought not to do that, but ought to face the difficulty while we are with it in the present Session. When the Attorney-General is asked whether he will agree that the Order-in-Council shall be considered during the present Session, he says: "I cannot give such a promise, because I do not know whether all the information will be collected." Have you got to the stage in this Measure that you have not yet collected all the information dealing with these 22,000,000 people—that you have not got this information and do not know that you will be able to get it—that, although we are only now in the middle of May, and are to sit here till August, even by August you do not know whether you will have got the information which one would have thought you had thoroughly digested long before the matter was placed in print in the Bill?
I say that that is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that it does justify the use of the words "haphazard" and "precipitate," which I am very pained to use, in regard to anything with which the Attorney-General is concerned, because no one works harder and bears a heavier daily burden of skilfully discharged mental toil than he does; but I must say that the words are applicable to this particular lapse into which he has fallen—what other
words could be appointed?—in having now shifted and shuffled the whole of this question off beyond the present Session, and cannot give any guarantee that it will be dealt with in the present Session, admitting that he is not in possession of the information necessary for doing so. We do not know what the future will have in store. The countryside is agog with rumours that this Parliament may not see the year 1936, and in any case the period must be very short. I say I am absolutely justified in saying that the Government in all probability are leaving this vast body of poor people—primitive, aboriginal people scattered about in all parts of India—with their fate utterly unprovided for by the Parliament which his carrying out this whole scheme. The question whether we shall have a further opportunity on the Report stage—as I gather we shall, since Amendments will have to be moved to Clause 91—for debating the subject of excluded areas, sinks into insignificance in the absence of a definite undertaking that this matter shall be dealt with in a manly, precise and serious fashion during the present Session. Certainly the withdrawal of the Schedule leaves the Bill meaningless, and leaves these poor people suspended between heaven and earth in total uncertainty as to their future and what that future will be.

6.15 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to add a few words in support of what my right hon. Friend has just said. The admission of the learned Attorney-General that it would be impossible for him to give the undertaking asked for that a new Schedule could be produced in this Session because so much work would be required and so many investigations would have to be made, seems to me to be a staggering indication of the haste with which this Bill has been introduced.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Noble Lady really must not, even at this moment, misrepresent me. I am not in the habit of giving pledges unless I know that I am in a position to keep them. I never said for a moment that the Government were not in a position to be in possession of the facts, or that it was necessary to make a fresh investigation. I never said it, and my Noble Friend has no right to put it upon me. I said that
I was not prepared to give a pledge, because I did not know at the moment whether there were any fresh facts which it would be necessary to obtain in order to fulfil the promise and lay the full information before the House. I hope that my Noble Friend will not apply that statement to me.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I have certainly no wish to misrepresent the learned Attorney-General, but I must say that his statement gave me the impression that there were a great many facts to be collected, and that he was not able to do so within the limits of the present Session. That seemed to me an indication of the haste with which the Bill was introduced to Parliament. The Bill is by far the largest and longest that has ever been presented to Parliament in its long history. I remember that only five weeks elapsed between the precipitate approval given by Parliament to the report of the Joint Select Committee and the publication of this Bill. We were asked to believe that the Bill had been drafted in the course of only five short weeks, which I never found easy to believe. I believe that the Bill was in draft months before the Joint Select Committee reported.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope that the Noble Lady will remember what we are now on.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I did not wish to stray from the point. It was only incidental, but it was obvious that five weeks was a very short period in which to draw up a Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already interrupted the Noble Lady by saying or implying that this is not in order. She must not discuss the Bill now. We are simply discussing whether this Schedule shall be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I can only say that it seems to me a very serious matter that, on anything that is mentioned in a Bill which has been under discussion by the House of Commons for three months, it should be said or indicated by the Government that it is impossible to say whether the discussions can be concluded in the course of this Session, and I must join my protest to that made by my right hon. Friend.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN: I want to make an appeal to the Attorney-General. He has told us that he is not aware of the fact that the Government have not collected the relative information necessary to come to a decsion upon this important matter. He has also told us that we must postpone or wait peacefully until the Secretary of State returns to his duties. Does he realise that there are 22,000,000 people whose fortunes are at stake until he can condescend to make up his mind, and that that number is more than double the population of Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand and other parts of the Empire? Is it fair to treat those people in this fashion and to say, "I cannot make up his mind. I think I may be able to make up my mind, but I am not sure." I agree with the Noble Lady when she says that this is a very bad case of drafting in haste 'and repenting at leisure. The lives of 22,000,000 people and the conditions under which they live and their future are at stake, and yet the Attorney-General tells us that it is improbable that he will be able to attend to this matter before the present Session ends, and he will not give a guarantee. It is really treating the House cavalierly to refuse to give a definite undertaking.
I hope that hon. Members who feel so strongly on this matter will again vote against the Government. It is the most unsatisfactory compromise I have ever heard in this House. The Attorney-General has really given no compromise at all. He has rebuked everybody. He has been proved totally wrong on several occasions, and now we have to wait before he can express any opinion on the future of 22,000,000 people. No dictator in Europe, however powerful, would say that 22,000,000 people must be in a sort of limbo for 12 months before he makes up his mind. I hope that the Government will not continue to adopt this autocratic and trenchant attitude.

6.21 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The learned Attorney-General said that he never said that the Government were not in possession of facts regarding the matter. If they are in possession of the facts, why do they not adopt the usual Parliamentary practice and withdraw this Schedule and introduce a new Schedule on the Report stage? Then we would have the new Schedule before us and be
able to discuss it in connection with the Bill as a whole. To withdraw an important Schedule which affects the lives of 22,000,000 people, and to say that it may or may not be dealt with in the course of the present Parliament is prostituting the responsibility of Members in this Parliament. None of us knows whether we shall be returned in the next Parliament, but we are responsible for a new Constitution for India. Why should we allow this new Constitution to pass away and receive its final form from Members in this Parliament without knowing what will be the fate of 22,000,000 of our inhabitants It is not unreasonable, and it is far better, that the Government, with such information as they have—if they have not full information they ought to have it after all this time—should withdraw the Schedule now and introduce a new Schedule on the Report stage, and then the House as at present constituted would know how to deal with the matter.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May we not have an answer? I am not going to preface my remarks with a desire not to speak for more than a minute or two. This is a very important point, and a very important thing in procedure. It is a lightning flash, and reveals a great deal of what many of us believe, and what we have endeavoured to persuade others, about the Bill, namely, that it is full of contradictions and anomalies, and has not been thought out in a great many respects. On this particular occasion in the Committee stage we have been able to show the very insecure foundation upon which all this great air of ministerial power and authority stands. I counsel the Attorney-General and the Under-Secretary that they are adopting an unusual and unnecessary Parliamentary procedure. The natural and proper course would be, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), to withdraw the Schedule and to introduce a new Schedule on the Report

stage. Then the Bill would be self-contained. The Government know perfectly well that a Schedule dealing with this matter ought to be in the Bill otherwise why should they have drafted it in this form? As they have omitted what is an integral part of the Bill, they ought not to change the procedure and leave it over to another Session or to another Parliament by an Order in Council as a sort of something which has been left behind to be attended to piecemeal at a later stage. They ought to propose a new Schedule when the Report stage is brought on. Why is there such a hurry to bring on the Report stage? It should be brought on after matters have been materially considered.

However, there you are. The Government have made up their minds that the question affecting the primitive tribes and backward races of India is one that they are incompetent to deal with in this Parliament. They are afraid of having half a dozen anthropologists added to this Bill. They are afraid that it will be said that opposition to the Government of India Bill is growing. They have taken the most unusual, almost unprecedented step of striking an entire Schedule out of the Bill and of leaving one essential, vital and integral part of the Bill completely unprovided for, in the hope that probably in another Parliament the apologetic and anthropological party will not be there to challenge them. Over and over again the exact procedure which the Government have adopted in the last two and a half hours has shown a very great infirmity of purpose and a very great lack of knowledge of the ordinary workings of the House of Commons, and they have introduced in our treatment of the India question an air of carelessness and levity which should never have touched such a grave matter, and should never, above all things, touch the fortunes of these poor people.

Question put, "That this Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 255.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[6.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Greene, William P. C.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Atholl, Duchess of
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hales, Harold K.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Knox, Sir Alfred


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Levy, Thomas


Carver, Major William H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)



Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Major George Davies and Dr.




Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Albery, Irving James
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Martin, Thomas B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mellor, Sir Richard James


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Gluckstein, Louis Halla
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)


Batey, Joseph
Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Goldie, Noel B.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Bernays, Robert
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Blindell, James
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bossom, A. C.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Most, Captain H. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Grundy, Thomas W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Paling, Wilfred


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Patrick, Colin M.


Burghley, Lord
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peake, Osbert


Butler, Richard Austen
Harris, Sir Percy
Pearson, William G.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Penny, Sir George


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Petherick, M.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonal Arthur P.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hicks, Ernest George
Potter, John


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Asten)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Christie, James Archibald
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Clarke, Frank
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Clarry, Reginald George
Iveagh, Countess of
Rickards, George William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Robinson, John Roland


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Conant, R. J. E.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Russell, Hamar Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Crookshank, Col. C. da Windt (Bootle)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Cross, R. H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Savery, Samuel Servington


Daggar, George
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lawson, John James
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leonard, William
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Dickle, John P.
Lewis, Oswald
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobble, William
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Drewe, Cedric
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Somervell, Sir Donald


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dunglass, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Eales, John Frederick
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Eastwood, John Francis
Lunn, William
Spens, William Patrick


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mabana, William
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Edwards, Charles
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart




Thorne, William James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Tinker, John Joseph
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Train, John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
West, F. R.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Turton, Robert Hugh
Williams, David (Swansea, East)



Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Bracken

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Legislative Lists.)

6.38 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 290, line 4, to leave out "in India," and to insert "borne on the Indian establishment."
This is a drafting Amendment. It has been decided to substitute the words "borne on the Indian establishment" for the words "in India" with respect to the naval, military and air forces, because that is clearly what is intended.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 290, line 7, to leave out from "Governments," to "central," in line 9.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. In the first paragraph of the Schedule, in lines 7, 8 and 9 there appear the words:
including the use of those forces in aid of the civil power, whether Federal or Provincial.
If we leave out these words the generality of the Clause fully covers the use of the forces and their presence might limit the use. There are one or two further Amendments which are consequential. The words having been left out the later Amendments in the Provincial and Concurrent List make it clear that this use of the armed forces will not be within Provincial powers. Although the Amendment is really drafting it required a word of explanation, as it is important.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 290, line 9, to leave out
relation to defence and external affairs,
and to insert:
British India for reasons of State connected with defence, external affairs, or the discharge of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States.
This Amendment slightly expands that part of the Bill which deals with preventive detention, and covers cases which it may be desirable to cover.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 291, line 8, leave out:
Indian subjects of His Majesty,
and insert:
British subjects domiciled in India"—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 291, line 31, after "navigation," to insert "the provision of aerodromes."
It is right that the provision of aerodromes should come under this head.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Before I call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to move the next Amendment, I should like to point out that I think it covers the point in the various Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). If the hon. and learned Member has any point that he desires to raise, perhaps he will be good enough to raise it on this Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 292, line 13, at the end, to insert:
36. Regulation of labour and safety in mines.
37. Regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under Federal control is declared by Federal law to be expedient in the public interest.
In the Bill as drafted, mines and development were a provincial subject. Let me deal first with the proposed new paragraph 36. We have considered the point raised by the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and think it right that the regulation of labour and safety in mines should be a central subject. There is a technical department which deals with this matter. It is a thing which requires uniformity. The staff is small, but it would lead to unnecessary expense if every Province had to have its own technical staff. Apart from that fact, it is desirable that there should be uniformity in dealing with this
very important matter with regard to the regulation of labour and safety in mines. The other side of the Amendment deals with the question of uniformity in Federal control in the regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development. I can appreciate the argument that can be advanced for central control in these matters. This Amendment does not go quite as far as those standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend, but we believe that this is the best scheme. If there is inaction at the Centre the Provinces can go ahead with their own regulations and developments, but to the extent to which the Centre desires and declares by law that there shall be central regulations and control, then the subject comes out of the purely restricted Provincial field and becomes a subject of control at the Centre. There is a consequential Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State. We propose, in page 295, line 7, to leave out paragraph 22—
mines, including the development of mineral resources of the Province
and to insert:
22. Regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under Federal control.
There is also an Amendment in page 298, line 6, to leave out the words:
regulation of the working of mines, but not including mineral development
The hon. and learned Member for Ashford has an Amendment down dealing with the power of the central government to tax royalties. In our opinion that question does not arise here, and the matter is sufficiently covered by the amendments proposed.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: Do I understand that matters affecting legislation in regard to mining are now to be a central subject? The Solicitor-General said that the centre would act in case of default by the province.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member has not appreciated the distinction I made between No. 36 and No. 37. No. 37, that is, the regulation of mines and oil fields and mineral development, will only operate if there is an express
law passed relating to that development by the Centre.

Mr. ATTLEE: In that case we are dealing with two separate Amendments. On the question that the regulation and working of mines should be a federal subject, our view always has been that it is best to keep labour legislation in the concurrent list. Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the administration of the regulations and development of mines must be entirely separated from the regulation of labour and safety in mines? Will there be a central factory inspectorate staff; will everything be done by the centre? Is there any possibility of the provincial government acting in relation to welfare and safety in the mines? I want to be quite clear whether the whole subject of mining is to be entirely outside the provincial sphere except in regard to regulation and development.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Broadly speaking, we prefer central control with regard to safety measures and hours and conditions of labour; but the Solicitor-General would help us if he could tell us what the conditions are at the moment. Have the provinces their own rules and regulations, and hours and work? Do the conditions vary in the provinces? The Amendment only suggests that where the federal law is passed, conditions become uniform under some federal legislation. It would help us if we were told whether it is the view of the Government that these questions ought to be taken from the legislative council and administered by the Council of State; whether in all questions relating to the working of mines the subject of hours of labour and terms and conditions shall be made uniform without waiting to see what the provincial council is doing. We have always desired that there should be contact between workmen and their representatives. The Council of State will be a remote body as far as the mine worker is concerned, and the Legislative Assembly will be much nearer. The worker will be much nearer his representatives there than he is to his representatives in the Council of State. What are the intention and desire of the Government in this matter? India is very different from this country. There are reasons why one may feel that the central government would be better
than a provincial government to secure uniformity in rates of wages and conditions, but the proposed Parliament which we are now establishing is very different from the Parliament in this country. What are the conditions to-day with regard to the control of these matters which are vital to the miners and their families? Have the Government made up their mind that whether a provincial legislature desires to legislate on behalf of its area or not it is the intention that the Council of State shall legislate for the whole of the mines of India?

6.52 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: I do not propose to add anything to what has been said by hon. Members opposite in regard to the question of regulation of labour and safety in mines except that I regret there is no reference to the question of wages in that proposal; no question as to whether the question of wages should or should not be a federal subject. Let me say a word or two about the new proposal, No. 37. Quite frankly, I do not know how far it is intended that these words should go or what they are intended to cover. In the ordinary course, when you are dealing with mines and minerals there are, quite apart from the questions of labour and safety, two other important items on which the Committee should make up its mind which body, the federal legislature or the provincial legislature is going to legislate. The first is who is to have a proprietary right in the mines and minerals; whether the mines and minerals are, or can be by legislation vested in the Crown or in private individuals, and, if so, whether the legislature is to have power, if they are vested in individuals, to vest them in the Crown; whether the legislature is to have power to legislate over the terms of concessions, mining laws and licences affecting proprietary rights? The second subject is what legislature is to have power to deal with the ordinary regulations which affect the working of the mines themselves, and which are to be incumbent and binding on mineral lessees who are working the mines. Lastly, there is the question which legislature is to have the power to tax mineral rights.
As far as I have been able to ascertain you have a very confused situation in India as regards mining laws at the moment. In Madras all mines and
minerals are vested in the Crown, and no landowner has or can acquire any right in regard to its minerals. That, at any rate, is the case in regard to coal. In Bengal and elsewhere landowners under the Permanent Settlement Scheme have acquired the right, and have been allowed the right, of dealing with and disposing of minerals. The Crown, although it has never admitted their legal right to do so, has certainly stood by for 100 years while these dealings have been going on. Throughout all India the Crown itself has been a substantial mineral owner. As regards minerals owned by the Crown, I understand that the position in India has been that, in fact, the Central Government have always made the general rules and regulations affecting the terms of leases and licences, the amount of royalties and the surface rents, which can be charged to those who work the minerals, but, having collected the rents, they have always accounted to the Provinces for the rents collected. Obviously, therefore, there has been, and is, a great diversity of treatment of minerals in India, and I would urge that this is an opportunity when an endeavour should be made to introduce uniformity into the mining laws of India and, if possible, provide one code applicable to all minerals, or at any rate to important minerals, throughout the length and breadth of India.
I have on a former occasion referred to the unfortunate results which have occurred in the United States and elsewhere where a variety of States have been allowed to deal with proprietary rights and regulations affecting the minerals of their own district. The same thing will happen in India if we have 11 States making their own laws with regard to the rights of owners in minerals, whether they are vested in the Crown or in private persons. It is exactly the same thing with the important question of the taxation of minerals, one State imposing high taxes on mineral rights and another State imposing a different scale of taxation. This only leads to confusion and to a very uneconomic and non-commercial development of the mineral resources of a country. Therefore, I urge that as far as possible we should take this opportunity to try to bring about one code of laws relating to as many minerals as possible throughout India.
I appreciate that when one comes to deal with proprietary rights, and one suggests that the Federal Government should have inclusive legislation regarding proprietary rights in minerals, there may well be difficulties concerning some minerals which are inside Indian States. But the system which has been adopted regarding Crown minerals in India, namely, that regulations are made from the Centre but that taxes and revenues derived from them are accounted to the Provinces, is, I would suggest, a method which might be further considered as applicable to minerals generally in India. After all, what the Ruler of a State wants most is that he should be secure in his revenue from his minerals. But the advantage to the country of obtaining one system for the development of minerals is such that I would urge the Committee to support me in a request to the Government that they should consider further whether they cannot rather enlarge the proposed Section 37 so as to give the Federal Centre some further control over the development and exploitation of minerals in India.
If it is impossible to deal with all minerals, then I would urge that at least coal and petroleum—which are, I understand, the two most important minerals likely to be developed in the territories of the Federation—should be put under Federal control from the very start; and that we should avoid having no less than eleven different mineral codes operating in India, except to such an extent as the Federal Government may make some sort of regulation for "mines and oilfields and mineral development." What those words mean I do not know. I do not know whether under these words the Federal Centre will be entitled to interfere with the proprietary rights in minerals—to vest minerals in the Crown or to buy up royalties or anything of that sort. It seems to me that the present wording of this Amendment leaves great scope for doubt about the whole position, and I would suggest that at any rate some further effort should be made to vest in the Federation, as far as possible, a wider control than that proposed by the Amendment before the Committee.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think that the Committee will probably agree
with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. But as I read these two regulations the first one does go a long way—in dealing with the regulation of labour and safety in mines—towards a unified system of mining in India. I must agree with my hon. Friend that Number 37 is not quite so clear. It entirely depends on what can be done under the two words in the second line, "regulation and development." If under "regulation" you can have a comparatively flat rate for the mineral duties over the whole of India, then you have got some form of unification; but I think the Committee should be clearly told whether these words would enable the Federal Government to pass laws which would enable them absolutely to unify the position as far as mining is concerned. If you are going to have a Federal authority I feel sure that it is better in this case that they should bring things into line.
We should have a full explanation exactly as to how far they can go under these two words. As far as development is concerned what would happen if one State or Province at the present time is developing a mine close to its boundary and its next-door neighbour refuses to develop in any way? The conveyance of oil by a pipe-line is another possibility which we should consider in this connection. Even if you can deal with such a situation in the Provinces, you are up against a further difficulty as to whether the States will come in. I think, therefore, that the Government might well explain the position—whether under the existing system they have the power of regulation which is necessary; and, further, whether it is the intention of the Government really to use the Federal power to achieve unification or not? It seems to me most essential that it should be developed as far as possible, so that you do not get the sort of thing you might have were you to have a boundary with a pipe-line running hrough it, and entirely different rules and regulations on one side and the other of the boundary. You might have one Province or State holding up the whole scheme. I want to see, if possible, that there is power in the Federal Centre to stop that kind of thing.

7.9 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I wish to associate myself with the request—that we should know something of what the position is about the present distribution
of powers before we proceed to make up our minds on the Amendment before the Committee. As no Member of the Government seems to be in a hurry to reply to the question put—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It was thought more convenient to deal with the question after subsequent speakers had expressed their views. It was not because of any hurry or any discourtesy to the Committee that it was decided to allow other Members to speak before making the Government reply.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I did not wish to accuse any Member of the Government of discourtesy, but it is very helpful to the discussion if right at the beginning we can realise what the present position is. May I remind the Committee of one or two points which were made clear in the Report of the Simon Commission? In the first place, the Simon Commission in their first volume showed that the settlement of labour disputes, factories, electricity, boilers, gas, and the welfare of labour, including provident funds, industrial insurance (general, health and accident) and housing, were provincial subjects reserved to the Governor. They were not among the transferred departments. I have always regarded it as an extremely important point that when departments were first transferred to responsible Indian Ministers, while responsibility for development was transferred, questions concerning the welfare of labour were a reserved department. We cannot be too clear that one of the things we are now asked to approve in this Bill is the transfer of all these subjects so closely affecting the welfare of labour from the hands—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It may be so in the Bill, but it is not so in this Schedule.

Duchess of ATHOLL: But I suggest that this also applies to the Schedule? The Governor at present can concern himself with these questions, along with his Ministers. Then the Simon Commission goes on to say that these question of the welfare of labour, including provident funds, industrial insurance (general, health and accident)—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The list of subjects which the Noble Lady is reading out has no relation whatever to the Amendment now before the Committee.

Duchess of ATHOLL: With all due respect, Captain Bourne, if I may be allowed to finish the sentence I think the Committee will see that it has relation to the Amendment, because the list shows that these subjects which are Provincial to-day are subject to legislation by the Indian Legislature. Therefore, there are powers to-day in the hands of the Indian Legislature to legislate for these very important subjects. But I think it is not out of order if I tell the House that a mine inspector gave his opinion to the Simon Commission that the Indian Legislature had shown itself very little interested, for instance, in the work of women and children in the mines of India. Therefore, the Committee should clearly realise that there may not be very great interest taken in those questions in the proposed Federal Legislature. They cannot be expected to have British standards before them as a Governor-General or a Governor from this country would have. We should not forget that at present the Governor-General has power to insist on the passing of any resolution—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lady appears to me to be arguing against the transfer of these powers to any Legislative Assembly. That point has been decided long ago by this Committee. The sole question now is whether the regulation of mines shall be dealt with by the Federal or Provincial legislatures.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Surely it is in order to compare what is proposed with what at present exists.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Hardly. We are not concerned with the present situation. Possibly it might be in order to ask whether it is the Central or the Provincial Governments which at the moment have this power. But that is not what is now before the Committee.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether when we submit questions to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Amendment we are not entitled to know exactly what the conditions are at the moment with regard to the control of safety,
hours of labour, and other things affecting mines? Clearly we were under the impression that the Solicitor-General would be good enough to acquaint the Committee with the situation as it is to-day so that we might be able to compare the situation as it may be under the terms of this Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member, like other hon. Members who have spoken, has not quite realised the very limited nature of this Schedule. The question in front of the Committee at the moment on this Amendment and other Amendments is merely whether the power to legislate on certain subjects should go to the Federal Legislature, the Provincial Legislature or the Concurrent List. The question which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) put as to which body, if any, at the moment has power to legislate of course can be asked and answered, but it must not be argued. That point is only involved in so far as it may be the foundation for an argument that something now under the Provincial Legislature should remain there, and not be transferred to the Federal List or vice versa. We cannot go into an elaborate discussion of what is now the practice in India on these Amendments.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne. I am glad it is proposed that there should be Federal power in this matter. I think the more these questions of labour welfare are brought in to the light of day in the whole of British India, the more likelihood there is of good standards being achieved—and obviously it is very desirable that the standards should be good. I am also glad of the Amendments put down both by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), which will give power to the Federal Legislature in regard to the working of minerals. But I share the doubt of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford whether the terms of my right hon. Friend's Amendment are wide enough.
What I have in view is the question of a possible concession for the working of mines. That seems to me very important. It is well known that there is a good deal of evidence of corruption in connection with contracts given by local authorities.
There may be concessions given for the working of mines, and there is less likelihood of influences of that kind operating in the Federal Legislature than in the Provincial Legislature. It is very desirable that there should be some powers in the hands of the Federal Assembly, powers which might be used to combat influences of that sort. I am not sure that the Government Amendment covers the point. I rather fear that the words "regulation and development" may mean that the central Legislature would have no power to safeguard the grant of concessions.

7.17 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: As the Government Amendment stands, is there not a likelihood, or at any rate, a grave fear, that between the Provincial and Federal Governments there may arise in future a controversy, after the proposed procedure in regard to the working of mines has been going on for some time? I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) will appreciate the fact that, once the Provinces are in control of the mines, it will be extremely difficult in practice for a Federal Legislature, largely appointed from the same kind of people, who are interested in Provincial matters, to take over a control which has hitherto been exercised by the Province. It seems to me that the gravest danger of the proposals of the Government is that we are, as it were, inviting the future possibility of friction between the Province and the Centre. I should have thought it would have been much better to have decided now what minerals are purely Federal, rather than to leave the decision to the future. It appears to me that that difficulty is not met by the Amendments of the Secretary of State, and I am not sure that it is met by the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford. Whether that be the case or not, it is a point which calls for a reply.

7.19 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I notice that the Government are not proposing to remove taxation of mineral rights from the Provincial list, where it now is. How can the Federal Government have power to regulate the development of mines if an unlimited power to tax rights is still left in the Provincial Legislature?

7.20 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not know whether my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) was present when I made my opening remarks, but points that she has raised I dealt with in that speech. There is in India, in charge of these matters, a central technical mining department and it is the fact that the legislation, such as it is, is central. There is a Mines Regulations Act which, for instance, prevents women working in the mines at night. I have not, of course, the details in my head, but the regulation of conditions of labour and of safety is at present administered centrally and is a central subject. That is one reason for our moving this Amendment. Quite apart from the desirability of uniformity, it would be incurring unnecessary expenditure to have every Province setting up a technical department dealing with matters of safety and things of that kind. Regulation 36 does follow on the existing central position.
Then I come to questions put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), and by subsequent speakers. My view certainly is that these words clearly cover the power of vesting minerals in the Crown. The words would clearly entitle the Federal Assembly to make provision as to concessions, and the words of the Amendment are wide enough to empower the Federal Legislature to cover all matters in the development of mines, co-ordination and so forth. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked whether it was the intention of the Government to use these powers. These are not powers which His Majesty's Government can use, but powers which the new Legislature can use.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I meant the new Federal Legislature.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is, of course, our intention that this power and analogous powers to which I shall draw attention should be used by the Federal Legislature. We hope that the Federal Legislature will take an interest in the development of industries throughout India in all cases where common policy or common methods are desirable. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) rather
suggested that he did not like this way of dealing with the matter, and urged that we ought to make up our minds now and draw a hard-and-fast line between what is Federal and what is Provincial. I would point out that we are following the form that was in the White Paper and was approved by the Joint Select Committee and which appears in List 1. That is the sort of line on which we are dealing with mines and minerals. It is no good in effect shaking the Legislature by the scruff of the neck and saying, "Legislate about this," if the Members of that Legislature are not interested in the subject or ready to legislate about it. If you cut off this control from the Provinces you might have a period when, it may be through human infirmity at the moment, the Federal Legislature was not taking a great interest in this matter, and you might have tied the hands of the Province by giving exclusive power to the Federal Legislature.
Our view is that this particular scheme is most likely to lead in the shortest time to the results that we all desire if we leave the Provinces with power to legislate should legislation be desired. Once they start legislating, that brings the matter into the legislative picture, and it will stimulate the Members of the Federal Assembly to say "This is a matter with which we ought to deal." We believe there is more likelihood of there being the uniformity that we want if we proceed in this way than if we put power exclusively into the hands of the Federal Legislature at the start.

Mr. MOLSON: The learned Solicitor-General keeps on referring to leaving it to the Provinces. The responsibility for developing oil and coal is at present with the Government of India. What is being done under this is to transfer the primary responsibility from the Centre to the Province and at the same time to provide that subsequently it may be re-transferred from the Province to the Centre.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was speaking of the Bill as originally drafted and comparing it with the result which will flow from this Amendment. In the original Bill mines and minerals were exclusively Provincial. Many matters which are now Central are being transferred to the Provinces, but it would be
out of order to go into the larger issue raised by them. My Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) raised an obviously important point, into which we shall certainly look. I can quite imagine a form of taxation which would conflict with regulation and development. In that case I think I am right in saying that under the scheme I have in mind at the moment, List 1 wins; if there is overlapping between List 1 and List 2, List 1 wins. But I am not disposing of the point in that way. There is a real point of substance in my Noble Friend's speech, and it requires attention. I think we have made plain our intention, but I will certainly look into the point raised by my Noble Friend.
With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) I appreciate the fact that there may be difficulties of the kind which he has suggested on this and other points with regard to the legislative fields of the Provinces and the Centre respectively. I am not sure, however whether the hon. Member appreciates the fact that this is a power to legislate as to "regulation and development" and is not really a question of control of the mines. It is simply a question of some general scheme of development. I realise the possibility of a Province starting something which might not fit in with a central scheme but, as against that, we feel that on the whole it might delay matters to cut the Provinces off from the beginning. One can only hope that people will be sensible and that should a necessity for some central control and regulation arise, they will fit in with it and also that the method of control itself will be such as will fit in with local circumstances or peculiarities.

7.31 p.m.

Captain CAZALET: As a matter of drafting, may I ask whether the word "mines" in this connection includes oilfields? In the second part of the Amendment a distinction is drawn between mines and oilfields whereas the first part merely refers to the "regulation of labour and safety in mines." Surely there is no form of mineral activity in which the regulation of labour and safety is more necessary than in oilfields and I wish to know whether that word should not be included in the first part of the Amendment.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I am not sure whether, when we were discussing Part VI of the Bill, we made clear what the position was to be in regard to mines and there is a point which I wish to raise now and which may govern subsequent Amendments. It is the practice for nations to-day to enter into international agreements with regard to various matters such as health and conditions of labour. When this country enters into such an agreement Parliament has sovereign power to give effect to it by any legislation which may be necessary. In India, however, the Government which will negotiate such international agreements will be the Federal Government whereas the Provincial Governments will have to deal with many of these subject matters. When we transfer any subject from the Provincial to the Federal list as it is proposed to do here we make the procedure in that respect perfectly simple. But suppose that the question of labour and safety in mines had been left in the Provincial list and the Federal Government entered into an international convention on that subject, would the Governor-General be in a position to make sure that the Provinces would pass the necessary legislation?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that that question does not arise on this Schedule.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am merely putting the point in order to get information. My own belief is that under Clause 125 the Governor-General could ensure the passage of the necessary legislation but I am not clear on the point. It is a matter of importance and it bears on the particular subject which we are now transferring, because this is precisely one of those things which may be the subject of international agreement.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I understand the case of the Solicitor-General to be on these lines. Hitherto the regulation of mines has been largely controlled from the Centre. Under the original proposal of the Bill, it was to become a provincial subject but now, by this Amendment, power is to be given to the central authority to deal with it. Let us assume that out of 11 Provinces one Province which is alive to its responsibilities, embarks upon mining legislation and passes a law
which applies to the mines in that Province only. The other 10 Provinces do nothing. Then the Federal Legislature passes a Federal law and presumably its writ runs, not only in the 10 recalcitrant Provinces but in the eleventh Provinces as well. Does the new Federal law then supersede the provincial mining law in the case of the active eleventh Province? This may appear a simple point to the Solicitor-General but to me it is difficult and I should like a statement upon it.

7.37 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: There are some points in connection with these Amendments on which I should like to make a few observations from my own experience in the administration of the present law. The question has been raised as to whether mineral rights are with the Crown and to the best of my belief all those questions are settled, as they were in my own Province, under the original grant and under the several Land Revenue Acts and the Act giving the right of access to minerals to the Crown. All minor administrative acts can conveniently be done and have been done by the Province but almost from the beginning, in connection with the administration of these minerals, the Central Government have laid down by legislation regulations dealing with all questions of the working and management of mines and safety and the employment of women and so forth.
All those matters were under a Central Act but, apart from that, and apparently under no particular Act, but as a general executive instruction, the Central Government laid down rules under which prospecting licences and mining leases were to be granted. Those rules were fairly elaborate and every local government has hitherto followed them. The Central Government, at the same time, laid down standard rates of royalties to which the State was entitled. In the cases of precious metals and of oil, the question of royalties had to be referred absolutely to the Central Government but, in respect of other minerals, rates of royalties were laid down as an accompaniment of the lease and the local authorities collected those royalties as a form of land revenue. They were included among miscellaneous land revenue receipts. This power of giving leases and prospecting licences depended on the
standard rules being followed and it was not necessary to refer to the Central Government unless some exception was to be made or some concession granted outside the standard rules. In those circumstances I think the present administration has inspired general confidence and therefore I am very pleased to see this Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State because if this matter were left entirely with the local governments, there would be enormous danger of favouritism in the administration of concessions. It would leave the way open for special concessions which might be discriminatory.
There is the further point that great discrimination might be caused by heavier taxation being imposed in one Province than in another. If mines were being worked in one Province, say, by a European or a Parsee, and mines were being worked in another Province by persons of some other race and status, it would be possible for a Province to bring about discrimination. One Province might put a heavy tax on the European mining concern while the other Province would put a very low tax on an Indian mining concern. There is great necessity therefore for maintaining the control of the Central Government over the rates of taxes and so forth merely with a view to securing uniformity. The royalties and all other income derived would go to the Province and the Provinces would go on in the ordinary way as they are doing now administering those matters which they administer at present under the mining rules and the royalty rules. If they wanted to alter these rules they would require the sanction of the Central Government. It is that way that uniformity can best be secured while allowing the Provinces to have the legitimate income from their mining concessions, and at the same time avoiding all risk of discrimination between concession holders of different races. I thought that those facts, derived from my personal experience, might usefully be placed before the Committee in connection with the consideration of this matter. I support the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) whether this new item would
apply to oilfields. I should have thought that it would not. We are only dealing with safety in mines here, but we will consider whether oilfields do provide dangers analogous in degree and intensity to those found below ground in mines. I think it would be out of order if I answered the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) but I will refer him to Clauses 106 and 125. These deal with the position as to international agreements affecting labour and safety, but the only thing we are discussing is labour and safety in mines, and as the Federal Legislature have power under the Amendment which I am proposing, I do not think the question raised really arises.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If it was a matter of indifference from the point of view of international treaties whether it was in the Federal or Provincial lists, the situation would be different, but my difficulty is that Clause 106 is in conflict with Clause 125.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better raise that point on the Report stage.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I then come to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who asked me to assume that Provinces had got under way with this form of regulation. It is always difficult to consider these matters in the air, without knowing exactly what sort of regulation one is thinking of. Some forms of regulation would undoubtedly be impossible unless you had an all-India basis. It may be that some matter of price-fixing would be impracticable unless you had an all-India basis, or some control of distribution, such as we have in this country. But that is the sort of regulations which we visualise, and it is would be very difficult for a Province to get under way on its own. There might be a form of regulation and control on which a Province could start itself, and it might be that the very fact that that could be done by one Province without handling the position vis-a-vis the others would mean that it was a thing which was unlikely. But under Federal control it is a thing that could be left, as in this country, to different coalfields to organise on their own, because they would not prejudice themselves or impinge on their neighbours by
dealing with it. If it was a matter which the Federal Legislature decided ought to be taken under Federal control, undoubtedly it could take the power, and it could legislate accordingly.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Assuming that Province No. 1 has got going and the Federal Legislature then legislates affecting the other 10 Provinces, whose writ would run in Province No. 1 in mining legislation, the writ of the Province or the Federal writ?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would depend on the stage to which the thing had got. Federal control means a writ running in all Provinces, and therefore if the Federal Legislature had gone through the two stages and had said it was in the public interest that the matter should be publicly controlled, any provision of the Provincial law which was repugnant to the Federal law would be to that extent inoperative. It has always to be remembered that the connection between the Central Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures is very close. The hon. Gentleman opposite thinks that it is too close, but—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not develop that question on this Amendment.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: I thought it relevant to refer to it, because several hon. Members have raised the possibility of conflict between Provincial and Federal Legislatures as justifying this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.52 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 292, line 14, to leave out paragraph 36, and to insert:
36. The law of insurance and the regulation of the conduct of insurance business; Government insurance, except so far as undertaken by a Federated State or, by virtue of any entry in the Provincial Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List, by a Province.
This Amendment deals with the item of insurance, and the words which we propose are in the nature of a drafting Amendment, designed to make clearer the intention of the existing item. There are various Amendments which we shall reach later dealing with unemployment and health insurance, but this Amendment
safeguards the powers of the Provinces in respect to any special form of insurance, powers as to which have been by the Bill, or may be by Amendment, conferred upon them.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: There is a small point that occurs to me on this Amendment. When we talk of the law of insurance in this country we know that it will cover industrial insurance, motor insurance, and so on. It will also cover the insurance companies which handle workmen's compensation, but the vocabulary which we employ in this country in relation to Government insurance relates almost entirely to our social services, namely, unemployment insurance, health insurance, and contributory pensions insurance; and it occurred to me, in reading this Amendment, to ask what actually is meant by "Government insurance" here as apart from the law of insurance in connection with the other subjects which I have mentioned.

7.55 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: "Government insurance" would cover a scheme run through the Post Office savings bank or something of that kind. Matters which we might regard as insurance in this country are somewhat nearly allied to the matters which we shall come to in List II of this Schedule. This Amendment expressly excludes anything which may be found in that list or which the Committee may desire to put into it. "Government insurance" would simply cover such a matter as a Post Office savings bank scheme.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Would the terms of the Amendment preclude a Federated State associating itself with a Government insurance business if it so desired?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, I do not think so. We are here proceeding with the Legislative Lists, the matters about which laws can be passed, and there being powers to legislate about Government insurance, that legislation could take any form. The States would be a constituent part of the Federation, and clearly any conditions or terms could be inserted.

Mr. JONES: I am a little in the dark about this question. There are some 56 items in this Federal List, and a State
may accede in respect to any number of them. Suppose a State accedes in respect to this particular No. 26, which is insurance. What is the effect then of the words:
except so far as undertaken by a Federated State.
A Federated State in acceding may actually desire, for the purpose of securing its own scheme, to be associated in some way with an insurance scheme run by the Federal Government, but under these words will it not be specifically excluded?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I had not quite appreciated my hon. Friend's question, and I will certainly look into it. The object of these words is to safeguard the position where a State has a scheme of its own, so that the Federal Legislature cannot deal with it. The point of the hon. Gentleman is this: Supposing a State wanted to telescope its scheme, so to speak, into a general scheme, should we have tied our hands? I will look into that matter.

Mr. JONES: Thank you.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 292, line 20, to leave out "railway areas, and to any other," and to insert "any."
This and the next Amendment are rather complicated, but really they are drafting Amendments to item 38, which deals with the powers of the Federal Legislature to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any part of British India to railway areas and other areas outside British India, and which deals also with the position where it may be desired to extend the powers of a police force in a State to a railway area outside that State. The position is that if you have a single railway system, there is an advantage in having a single police area, in connection with it. Suppose the line of a railway system owned by a State goes for 20 or 30 miles outside the boundaries of that State into British India, it is convenient that there should be power to enable the police jurisdiction of the State to extend along its own railway, although actually it is running in British territory. There is a power the other way that laws may be made extending the powers of the police force
in British India to railway areas and to other areas in another governor's Province or a chief commissioner's Province in British India. The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause read a little more clearly.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 292, line 25, at the end, insert:
Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any unit to railway areas outside that unit."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 292, line 26, to leave out paragraph 39, and to insert:
39. Elections to the Federal Legislature, subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council made thereunder.
This is a different matter. On the whole it has been though desirable not to specify election offences in disputed elections. The intention is that the item should be a general item and put in general words, instead of as originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 292, line 31, at the beginning, to insert "Inquiries and."
This is a formal Amendment, and little more than drafting. It is obviously right that there should be power to deal with inquiries both legislatively and administratively. It may be that such a power is inherent, but we think it right to insert it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should like to ask whether these Clauses we are now discussing are in relation to the compilation of statistics or whether they cover any other field of inquiry which may not be present to our minds at the moment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: These are the subjects in regard to which the Federal Legislature has power to legislate, and certainly it is our intention that it should have a general power to pass a law, to set up a Committee, to inquire or lay down that there shall be conditions under which an inquiry shall be held into any matter. It really is, I think; a matter which is inherent in any legislation. It must have power to inform
itself and to pass the necessary legislation to inform itself.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 292, line 34, leave out "commodities and articles, and insert "goods."—[The Solicitor-General.]

8.6 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 293, line 5, at the end, to insert:
49. Pilgrimages other than pilgrimages wholly taking place within one unit.
One has had experience of epidemics produced in one Province by pilgrims who come from some other place of pilgrimage in another Province, of which often there has been no warning. You get a serious epidemic in your own area, which has nothing to with that area, but is due to returning pilgrims. There were cases, one in Bombay and one or two in Bengal, in which the measures taken in those Provinces were inadequate for the rush of pilgrims who came there, with the result that the pilgrims left a trail of cholera which was very difficult to deal with. In addition, when one provincial government has to write to another provincial government which is somewhat senior in the scale of local government, the position is not always easy, and it is very desirable that a provincial government that has a complaint to make about the failure—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman appears to be addressing his argument to the Committee on the assumption that when this Bill comes into power the present administration in Indian will continue. This Amendment deals solely with powers of legislation.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: I thought that an Act to regulate pilgrimages of this kind might be necessary in the circumstances of the future as they may have been in the circumstances of the past, and that therefore it is desirable that some general control should still reside in the Federal Government in order that these troubles between Provinces may not arise. Is is a matter that does not require any particular argument.

8.10 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. I cannot forget reading some of the memoranda addressed by provincial
governments to the Simon Commission. I found extremely interesting the memorandum submitted by the Government of the United Provinces pointing out the danger to public health which arises from the large number of pilgrims from all over India coming to the great religious centres in that Province. This Memorandum spoke of the danger to public health that arises from these great assemblies of pilgrims. The Province in which the pilgrimage is made may have quite suitable provisions and administration in regard to public health, but these may be vitiated by pilgrims coming from Provinces where legislation is less advanced. The Government of the United Provinces founded on that a plea for public health Acts relating to India as a whole. That is, to my mind, the great importance of this Amendment, that while it does not deal strictly with public health, the question of public health is closely related to it. Because of that great question which means so much to the welfare of India, it would be very desirable for the Federal Legislature to have power to legislate in regard to pilgrimages, not within one unit, but as occurring between different units.

8.11 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I hope the Solicitor-General is going to accept this Amendment. It does seem eminently reasonable. I think in certain Dominions of the Empire legislation is vested in the main government, for example in the Commonwealth of Australia. I should have thought it was obvious that if you had these big pilgrimages across Provinces and into fresh Provinces it was very necessary to have some federal control.

8.12 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a proposal to put these pilgrimages into the exclusively Federal List. It really is a question for the Provinces. Let me take the hon. Member's point that there is a real danger to the Provinces through which the pilgrims go and that there may be disease spread, or other matters arise which have to be dealt with. If this is in the exclusively Federal list, it may deprive the Provinces, which is the unit primarily interested, of any part in any legislation. That cannot have been what was intended.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: There is a difficulty about that, but at least it might be put in the Concurrent List so that the Federal Government could have the necessary legislative power.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Having, if I may say so without offence, driven the hon. Gentleman out of the position he had taken up, let me follow him to the Concurrent List. In the Concurrent List there is power to deal with the matter to which he refers. Paragraph 29 says:
The prevention of the extension from one unit to another of infectious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants.
That is now in the Concurrent List. But surely the actual pilgrimages are specific events. They take place from one Province to another at particular times of the year. Pilgrimages in one part of India may raise different problems and different positions from those that take place in another part of India. Therefore, they are of vital concern, administratively and possibly legislatively, to the Provinces from which they come, through which they go, and from which they return. It surely must be right that legislative and administrative power dealing with pilgrimages should be in the Provinces which are the units vitally concerned. As the hon. Member for the English Universities knows, the Provinces in India already have their own epidemic diseases Acts and therefore are able to deal with the pilgrims who come to them. This Bill links legislation and administration. Therefore, having regard to the fact that item 29 in the Concurrent List enables the Centre to deal with the question of the spread of infectious or contagious disease, and that nobody could contemplate depriving the Provinces of the power to deal with pilgrimages as such, we think that the scheme of the Bill is not only watertight to meet the point of the Amendment, but is the best general lay-out of the administrative and legislative powers to deal with the matter.

8.16 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I can appreciate that item 29 is intended to prevent the extension of epidemic disease from one Province to another and that it could deal with the special danger that arises in connection with pilgrimages, but does not my hon. and learned Friend think that there might be other matters than health in regard to which some central
legislation is desirable affecting the transit of pilgrims, such as, for instance, railway legislation or something of that kind?

8.17 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I did not follow my hon. and learned Friend when he said that it was impracticable to take this matter out of the hands of the Provinces whose main concern it was. The Provinces are represented in the Federal Legislature, and, if they desire any particular legislation, their representatives have only to urge it on the Central Government. By leaving it purely in the hands of the Provinces certain dangers might arise. There is the possibility of a dispute between one Province and another, and also the possibility that, as the result of communal trouble, one Province might undertake legislation which, under the guise of public health or some other such need, might make pilgrimages difficult. I believe that there are Hindu shrines in Provinces that have a permanent Moslem majority, and Sikh shrines in Provinces which are not controlled by Sikhs; and it may be possible that, as a result of communal trouble, religious parties will bring forward legislation which will seriously impede the effective transport of pilgrims from, one Province to another. That, I think, is a reasonable ground for pressing on my hon. and learned Friend the desirability of considering whether it would not be in the best interests of India to take this power from the Provinces and give it to the Legislative Assembly.

Amendment negatived.

8.19 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 293, line 6, at the end, to insert:
50. Regulation of the working of mines, but not including mineral development.
51. Ranchi European Mental Hospital.
The first of these items was dealt with in the earlier discussion, and I do not think the Committee will want any further words about it. With regard to Item 51, Ranchi is a summer camp in Bihar and is governed by the Centre. It is supported by contributions from various Provinces, and it is considered that the best way to maintain it is to make it an exclusively central subject.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 293, line 9, leave out "income from agricultural land," and insert "agricultural income."

In line 11, leave out paragraph 52, and insert:
52. Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies." [The Solicitor-General.]

8.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I beg to move, in page 293, line 18, after "railway," to insert "road."
I feel sure that the omission of the word "road" is merely an oversight on the part of the Government. It is obvious that goods come to a town not only by railway and air, but also by road. To-day in India, as throughout the rest of the world, road transport is developing, and it is necessary to include "road" as well as "railway" in order that taxes may be collected on vehicles brought in by road.

8.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is possible that my hon. and gallant Friend may have forgotten, as we all might have done, the provisions of Clause 135. That Clause provides that certain taxes, among which are terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railway, water or air and taxes on railway fares and freights, shall be levied and collected by the Federation, and that the net proceeds in any financial year shall be handed over to the Provinces. The terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railway, water or air are Federal, and this item is in the Federal List because these means of transport are, from the administrative point of view, dealt with federally. Railway administration all over India is a Federal subject. Therefore, the collection of the terminal railway tax is a proper matter for the Federal Legislature to deal with, whereas road transport is not federalised and there is no reason why, in the event of there being terminal taxes on goods carried by road, they should be in this list or why the Federal Legislature should have any power over them.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the position
of a railway company which undertakes road transport?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The terminal tax on goods and passengers carried by rail, water or air is a Federal tax and that means that such transport is dealt with by the Federal Legislature. If a railway company in India is able to own road transport—I do not know whether it can—the goods it carries in its lorries will obviously not be carried by rail, water or air. It does not matter who owns the lorry, whether a railway company or somebody else, the goods are carried on the road. The scheme is to give the Federal Legislature power to legislate for levying these taxes on systems of transport which they themselves administratively control. Road transport is outside the Federal field. If there are any terminal taxes on road transport, they can be dealt with by the Provincial Legislatures and the proceeds will go to the Provinces.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.27 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 293, line 19, at the end, to insert "56. Weights and Measures."
This Amendment proposes to include weights and measures in the Federal List. At present this item appears in the Provincial List, paragraph 29. It seems almost inconceivable that, though we have different systems of weights and measures at present, they should continue to exist as a permanent part of the future arrangements in India. I shall be very glad if the Government can give me any reasons why the present apparent anomaly should continue. One would have thought that weights and measures whould have been almost the first subject to be put on the Federal List.

8.29 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend has noticed item 49, which gives the Federal Legislature power to establish standards of weight. It did occur to me that that might not, in terms, include measures, and I am having that question looked into. I think the right system is for the central
legislature to have the power to establish standards. My hon. and gallant Friend asks, "Then why have weights and measures in the Provincial List?" As we all know, India is a very large country, and there is a great variety of weights and measures used throughout India. If we say that the Centre shall, as and when practicable, lay down standards, it may be possible in the future to standardise weights and measures, while in the interim, before the country is ripe for such a measure of standardisation, each Province will be able to lay down what weights and measures shall be standard there. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate the reason for leaving this subject in the Provincial List, subject to the small point whether the wording of item 49 is restricted to weights or includes measures.

8.31 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: The reason I raised this point was that I was aware that there were all these different standards in vogue, and felt that if the Federal scheme meant anything it ought to put all these various weights and measures on one common standard. That must be part of the scheme, and. I gather from what the Solicitor-General has said that there will be nothing to prevent that being done if matters stand as they are.

8.32 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was glad to hear my hon. and learned. Friend say that he will consider the question of putting "measures" in item 49, because, as he no doubt remembers, both weights and measures, though provincial subjects, are now subject to legislation by the Indian Legislature as regards standards. Therefore, if measures become a provincial subject under this Bill that will be a decentralisation of a matter which I think the Committee will agree should, as far as possible, be standardised.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

8.33 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 293, line 19, at the end, to insert:
56. Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption.
This is a very much more important Amendment, and we hope it may have
very serious attention from the Government. Marriage and divorce and the position of infants and minors are vital and key questions in the future of India; in fact, they go to the very roots of the whole social and religious life of India. They are governed at present by the religions of the people, the Hindu law applying to Hindus and the Islamic law, based on the Koran to Moslems. It appears to me that any legislation on these subjects must be an all-India question, and that it is essential that they should be included in the Federal List. I think that hitherto these questions have always been all-India questions.

Mr. BUTLER: They are in the Concurrent List.

Sir H. CROFT: They have been subjects which have been attended to by the all-India authorities. In every Province of India for all time, as I see it, under the Bill, there will be a definite communal majority, and if that majority were to legislate upon these very vital matters, which are more important to the Indians than any political question, it is undoubted that that would lead to very serious complications in those Provinces. We might go further than that. The whole of India might easily flare up. This seems to be a question which should not be touched at all, or only with tremendous care and even then only by the Central Government. I can imagine no more fruitful ground for the clash of opinion or that would lead to more serious communal disputes, than an interference with the religious customs of the people in India from any other quarter than the Federal Centre. The Committee are probably aware that there is already a great deal of discontent on this matter in India. Orthodox Hindus have, in fact, been petitioning the Viceroy against the actions of the reforming Hindus, who are a small but nevertheless powerful political entity in India, and protesting against the latter introducing legislation with regard to marriage and legalising divorce, which Hindu religious opinion does not allow, proposals which affect very seriously the whole basis of the Hindu religion. The leaders of the orthodox Hindus feel very strongly that if these matters are allowed to be tampered with and if alteration is unchecked by the representatives of the King Emperor, that will be a violation of Queen
Victoria's historic proclamation which guaranteed that, under British rule, there would be no interference with religion. I know that this is a most difficult subject, and that is why I want to see it dealt with only with the utmost care so that no hasty proposal should be made in connection therewith. I believe that the Viceroy received a petition last year on this very subject.
Let me give an instance. I think I am right in saying that the Sarda Act has incurred the hostility of very large sections of Hindus and Moslems, because they regard it as an interference with their marriage customs. This was one of the arguments used on the North-West Frontier by the Red Shirts in fomenting the attempted rebellion there. Since these prolonged discussions have been taking place we have realised more and more that religious and social customs in India are interwoven, and I have feelings of the very gravest alarm lest there be a hasty attempt to interfere with the special customs of the people of India such as might lead to an immediate religious conflagration. There are many religious customs in India of which I do not approve, but that fact has nothing to do with the case. We are under the most solemn pledge from Queen Victoria's day that we, as British people concerned with the government of India, will not in any way be responsible for such interference. I have had numerous letters from leading Hindus in India during the last year, complaining that they think that under the Bill there is grave danger of their religious customs being undermined, and that is why I ask His Majesty's Government to consider whether it would not be better to take these subjects out of the list in which they stand and to bring them under Federal control.

8.40 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: On looking at the lists of subjects given in the Statutory Committee's Report, I cannot find any mention of marriage or divorce, or of the headings mentioned in the Amendment. The nearest I can get to them is number 16 in the Central List, which is:
Civil law, including laws regarding status, property, civil rights and liabilities, and civil procedure.
Possibly those subjects in the Amendment are included under the civil law regarding status. It do not know whether my hon. and legal Friends would say that
the word "status" would include divorce. I should imagine that marriage laws stood by themselves and, if they are meant to be covered by the civil laws referred to in the present list, it rather looks as though there were anxiety on the part of the authorities not to proclaim the fact that marriage laws are something with which the central Legislature to-day can be frequently concerned.
I can confirm what has just been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) as to the great anxiety that is felt by the orthodox Hindus at the thought that these matters can be legislated for by a Federal Assembly without the previous sanction of the Governor-General. I have had a great deal of correspondence on the subject showing this very great anxiety, and I think that you, Sir Dennis, have actually had letters endeavouring to make out that to bring these matters before the Imperial Parliament at all is a breach of the promise made in Queen Victoria's proclamation of 1858. I am aware that the point at issue in the Amendment is whether these matters should be in the Concurrent or in the Federal List, but the anxiety that is felt on the question makes it desirable that only the Federal Legislature should have the power to deal with those matters. There is a possibility of different laws being passed in different Provinces, because each Province will be under the rule of a communal majority, in most Provinces Hindu and in the minority of Provinces Moslem. There may be a variety of laws which go very much to the root of things, because in all countries marriage laws are basic laws, as they deal with questions of status, marriage and divorce. In India especially they are wrapped up with religious questions which are a great motive power in India in a way which they are not here.
I can imagine nothing more likely to cause unsettlement than these questions of marriage and divorce, and the fewer Legislatures that have power to deal with them the better. For that reason, and because on the whole a more balanced judgment will be possible in the Federal Legislature than in some of the Provincial Assemblies, it is better that they should rest with the Federal Legislature. I have also in mind that the Governor-General has the power to prevent legislation which he thinks might disturb peace and tranquility. It is conceivable that
measures of this kind might have that effect, or might appear likely to have that effect, and because the Governor-General has more power in that matter than, I discover, the Governors are to have, it will be safer if such matters are reserved to the Federal Legislature. For those reasons, I support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth.

8.45 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This proposal to remove from the concurrent list the subjects of marriage and divorce, infants and minors, and adoption, leaving them exclusively Federal subjects, is not one that I can agree on behalf of the Government to accept. I cannot help thinking that the proposal and the grounds on which it is supported are the products of a Western mind. These matters of marriage, divorce and adoption are largely dealt with—I was going to say in 99 cases out of 100—by what one may call the customary law of the two different communities. Nobody is unaware of the great varieties of circumstances in India; indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend and his associates are never tired of pressing on the Government that India is a great Continent where there are very striking differences in habits of life and modes of thought; and so it is in connection with these matters of marriage and divorce. The principle upon which we have proceeded, in putting these subjects into the concurrent list, is that generally speaking uniformity with regard to legislative principles is the right goal to aim at, but that there must be in relation to certain matters, of which these are illustrations, elasticity, to enable variations to be made in pursuance of provincial or local circumstances. My noble Friend the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) says that these are such important matters that it is desirable that they should only be dealt with by the Federal Legislature, in order, if I understand my Noble Friend's argument aright, to make it as unlikely as possible that there will be any legislation in the Provinces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) bases himself upon Queen Victoria's declaration that there shall be no interference with the religious customs of the people—

Duchess of ATHOLL: The religion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The religion of the people; and on the fact that many of these matters are really religious matters in India, as I understand it, although perhaps they may not be so much religious matters to us in the West. But really those arguments tend to show the correctness of the decision at which the Government have arrived. It would be most undesirable, I suggest, that there should be no opportunity of legislation to meet some particular local circumstance. It is most unlikely that there will be any interference with what I may call the customary law which regulates marriage and divorce, but if, owing to some local circumstance which cannot be foreseen, it were necessary to make some alteration, not in the customary law, but in matters relating to marriage and divorce, such for instance—this occurs to me on the spur of the moment—as registration of divorce or some matter of that sort, it would be very undesirable and inconvenient if legislation could not be passed by these Provincial legislative bodies. The Government are at one with my hon. and gallant Friend in desiring that there shall be no legislation which will interfere with matters that are dealt with by the customary law of the communities concerned, but, because we think we have secured the advantages of both worlds, we propose to leave these matters to be dealt with in the concurrent list as well as including them in the Federal list. If there should be any reason to suppose that the Provincial legislatures were going too far in any legislation that they might be minded to pass, the Federal Legislature will always be in a position to step in and correct any mistake that may be made.

Duchess of ATHOLL: If, as the Attorney-General seems to indicate, the intention in putting these subjects into the concurrent list is that the Federal Legislature should have the power to legislate in the larger and more important matters, leaving to the Provinces minor matters such as registration of divorce, would it not be well to indicate the difference by putting rather different words into these two lists?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: My Noble Friend must not attach too much importance to the illustration I have given. The idea is to allow minor matters
to be dealt with by the Provincial legislatures, and weightier matters to be dealt with by the Federal body. I should prefer to put it in this way, that, if there is any question of principle relating to these matters, the Federal Legislature would seem to be the proper body to deal with it, but if there are any matters—which may be important matters as well as quite minor matters—which require to be dealt with merely in relation to local or provincial circumstances, which vary as between, say, Madras on the one hand and the North West Province or the Punjab on the other, the Provincial legislature shall not have their hands tied and be prevented from making the necessary adjustment. I do not want to be thought to distinguish between important matters and minor matters; it is really that questions of uniformity of principle would be dealt with by the Federal Legislature, and other matters by the Provincial bodies.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The Attorney-General speaks of uniformity of principle, but to such an ignorant person as myself uniformity of principle seems very difficult of attainment. Would the Attorney-General enlighten me on this point? The question of marriage and divorce is in the concurrent list; that is to say, it will be dealt with by the Federal Legislature, as at present arranged, and also by the different provincial legislatures. But the majority in the Provincial legislatures is in some cases Hindu and in other Mohammedan. Of course we all know that the practice with regard to marriage and divorce in these two great communities is very different, and when the Attorney-General speaks of uniformity of principle it is very difficult to realise how uniformity of principle can be attained. Is it that certain principles with regard to a wife are laid down, and that those are to be made uniform over the whole of India? Is the question to be dealt with on a communal basis, or is it expected that it will be possible to have a uniform principle for the whole of India?

8.54 p.m.

Mr. WISE: I think the Attorney-General put his finger on the point when he said that these matters were religious matters. Surely, if they are religious matters, they are not Provincial. In
India, religions are not isolated in Provinces. Hindus are Hindus in the United Provinces just as they are in Bengal, and they are, in fact, the same sort of Hindus. They have the same marriage customs and the same divorce customs. Exactly the same is the case with the Moslems. There is no difference in Moslem marriage or divorce law as between one end of India and the other. Surely, if that be the case, all legislation dealing with these matters should be uniformly from the Centre, because there is bound to be a greater balance of opinion and a greater calm, if I may say so, at the Centre, than there is likely to be in Provincial assemblies. I am also rather surprised that the Attorney-General should reproach us for coming to this question with a Western mind. I thought that that was what we are all trying to do. We are not only trying to impose Western constitutions. We are trying to give India a Western mind, and surely the best way of accomplishing this object of Occidentalisation would be to settle these matters as in this country, and have the marriage and divorce laws controlled by a central, and not by a local administration.

8.56 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I would beg the learned Attorney-General to realise that we have not brought the Amendment forward without great consideration. Is your federation going to be a federation at all, or are you going to allow all these great customs to exist? We press the Government to consider the question, because some of the greatest authorities with whom we have been in touch are deeply concerned as regards the future. If in regard to the marriage age, or some other point of that description, there are to be different laws in different provinces, you will have a state of affairs much worse than has been the case in the United States, and which has led to such a scandal as regards the various divorce laws there. I beg of the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter. We ought to do everything in our power, surely, to try to assist the Indian laws of the future, so that the different Provinces will move along in the same direction in their law-making. If at the very inception you give an opportunity to the different Provinces to arrange different variations of these
very vital matters, you may have such a conflict of opinion in neighbouring provinces as to cause the very flare-up in religion which must continue to be a danger in India as long as there are religious conflicts.
Therefore, I urge the Attorney-General to consider this question a little further before the Report stage. We are not bringing the matter forward in any contentious manner; it is a question of the happiness and contentment of the people in the days to come. If different forms of legislation are to be permitted in the various Provinces, is it unfair for me to say that some of those new Provincial Assemblies will be very irresponsible for a time? You are likely to see the same kind of thing which you have seen in Ceylon and in the municipal government of Calcutta. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the municipal government of Calcutta has really been a very serious failure.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I deny it about Ceylon.

Sir H. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman denies the case of Ceylon, but the fact remains that, if I were in order, I could tell a long story about Ceylon. I think that he will agree that in the temptation of a new government to find its feet it has engaged in irresponsible proposals. If he had made a study of Ceylon he would see that that was the tendency which the Government had to face.

Mr. BUTLER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any instances of marriage and divorce laws having been passed by the Ceylonese Council?

Sir H. CROFT: I am merely stating the tendency.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I want to protest. The Ceylon Legislature has not touched one of these religious or family questions since the new constitution was established.

Sir H. CROFT: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the interruption. I was not attempting to suggest that that was so, and I am sorry if any hon. Members in the Committee think that it is so. What I said is that a new legislature, as in the case of Ceylon, wants
to find its feet. It wants to exercise all sorts of powers, and to throw its weight about, so to speak. I was not referring to this specific subject. You are bound to have ardent politicians in the Provinces, who, for the first time, find that they are there with an opportunity of making suggestions, bringing forward all sorts of extreme measures. Would it not be far better, when you have a Federal Government with greater solidarity and responsibility, and where the Provinces are also represented, to leave these very vital subjects in their hands, rather than to have every new politician trying to become notorious in the Provinces and bringing up these matters which so deeply affect the whole life of the people of India? That is why I submit that they are the best authority for dealing with these very vital matters. We have seen how vitally these questions affect the people, and how irresponsibility might lead to some great clash in the Provinces.

9.1 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK: It is impossible to exaggerate the great importance of not tampering, or seeming to tamper, in any way with the religions of the people of India. The learned Attorney-General has spoken about them, their customs and so on. These are all laid down in the great text books of Hindu law which are commentaries on the rules which were formerly promulgated by some of their great lawgivers. There are various schools of Hindu law regulating succession, joint families, self-acquired property and so forth. They are very important as regards adoption and marriage. It may be that we here do not think that there is any risk of those customs being altered by legislation or by pressure of any kind, but the Hindus themselves realise that danger and feel it. They ought really to know better than we can what danger there is. They are afraid that the considerable Moslem element that has arisen in the new population, of politicians especially, will deliberately do their best to cause mischief among the ordinary orthodox Hindus. They are genuinely alarmed, and are particularly desirous that no legislation should be introduced at all into the legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor-General. They
attach great importance to that. Once a thing has been introduced and discussion has ranged over it, bad blood arises all over the country. This is likely to cause such difficulties. The Proclamation of Queen Victoria they regard as the Magna Charta of their whole status, and nothing should be done by us in this House, by our legislation or by any legislation in India which seems to conflict with the promise then given. There is no portion of the famous Proclamation of Queen Victoria which is quoted so often and upon which real dependence is placed. Most people who know India well will say that it was that paragraph relating to religion in the Proclamation that helped the Indian people and reconciled them to British rule.
Therefore, it is of great importance that we should lose no opportunity of strengthening the position. The proper line always is that in purely religious practices which should not interfere, with the one exception where the practice conflicts with the ordinary criminal law. That has been the case with Suttee and with the age of consent and various other measures that have been taken. That is a very sound line to follow. Do not interfere with the religion of anybody else unless the act that you prohibit would be ordinarily an offence by whomsoever committed and whatever his religion may be. If you adopt that guiding line you will check a lot of these bits of legislation with regard to child marriage and so on. Our action is used against us by the very people who advocate the legislation. It is well known that agnostics in the Legislative Assembly who supported the Marriage Law were very prominent in making it a case of agitation against the British Government. They have no scruples whatever. They induce you to do a certain thing on the ground of modern culture or that the practice is at variance with intellect and so, and when you have done it they go among the more ignorant, superstitious people and lay it to the charge of the British raj that they have interfered with the religion of the people. Those are the dangers that we have to be on guard against. I hope that the Government will ponder very carefully before making any law which could be regarded in any way as an interference, direct or indirect, with any of the religious practices followed in India.

9.9 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I would point out that the Amendment—I am not suggesting that it has been hastily conceived—was only put on the Order Paper last Friday. Nor am I suggesting that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft)—

Sir H. CROFT: I wonder whether the Attorney-General, with his great staffs behind him, has any conception of the appalling pressure which has been put upon those of us who have been trying to follow this Bill without that assistance. To suggest that we should be able weeks in advance, when he has been rushing this Measure through day by day, to put down Amendments, is most unreasonable. It has been with the utmost strain that we have been working, even up to one, two, three and four o'clock in the morning, night after night when we have left here, in order to master the points of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I was saying anything unnecessary. I am afraid that he shows signs of the strain of sitting up until two or three o'clock in the morning. I intended no imputation whatever upon him and his colleagues. I merely made an observation which was introductory to another observation. The first observation was the fair statement of fact that the Amendment was only put down last Friday. I was going to follow that observation up by the statement that the Government's proposal for the inclusion of these subjects in the Concurrent List has not been a matter of controversy either in this country or in India, which is much more important. As between the two great bodies of Hindus and Moslems, although the Government proposal to include these subjects in the Concurrent List has been well known for months not a single doubt or suggestion has ever been made that they would prefer the matter to be left only in the Federal List. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will acquit me of any imputation when he sees that I was merely leading up to that observation. I am sure that he is working under great pressure, along with his colleagues, and, if he will allow me to say so, they are working admirably, having regard to the difficulties of the situation.
Listening to what my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) said, one would be under the impression that we were proposing to introduce legislation to alter the law of marriage in India. We are not proposing any such legislation. I go a very long way with him, in fact all the way with him, in thinking that it would be most undesirable to pass legislation to interfere with the customary law of these people dealing with the domestic customs such as the marriage of persons, the process of divorce and the law of adoption. We are not proposing to do that. All that we are proposing to do is to say that the Federal Legislature shall have power to deal with these subjects and as to that there is no difference of opinion between us, because that is my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal. The only difference is whether in relation to these matters, either connected with the substance or the machinery of the matter, the Provincial Legislative Bodies shall also have power to legislate. I cannot believe that the questions raised by Queen Victoria's Declaration and the undesirability of interfering with the customary laws of these people have anything to do with this very limited difference between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself.
He says, justifiably, that he has very competent advisers and suggests that it is a matter that requires reconsideration. All I can say is that the Government have had a number of very competent advisers. Advisers do not always agree, but we think that the advice which has been acted upon by the Government is advice which must have commended itself to the great community in India, for the reasons that I have stated, seeing that not a single voice has been raised in criticism of the proposal ever since it was put down until last Friday. I hope the Committee, after the arguments have been stated more than once in the last 20 minutes by successive speakers, will think that we can now proceed to a Division.

9.13 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for having added those few explanatory words, because at first it did appear as if he was reproaching us for not having put Amendments down many days in advance. It has been absolutely impossible to work at higher pressure than we have done, as a small section of this House really trying to study
the Bill, and I think the Attorney-General will agree that but for our intervention on most of the Clauses they would have gone by default, just like the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the Constitution for Ceylon. The reason why I told the Attorney-General that we did not propose this Amendment in any lighthearted manner is because I happen to have had a very long correspondence with people in India, who I know His Hajesty's Government have not encouraged very much—I do not think that it is unfair to say this—to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee. I refer to the orthodox Hindus who are an extreme religious wing of opinion in India and whose views are not received or welcomed very much in certain circles. The Attorney-General has said that until quite recently nothing had been heard at all on this question. It is at least six months since I was first informed that the leaders of the orthodox Hindus in India believed that if there were any possibility of dealing with the questions enumerated in the Amendment, it would lead to appalling bloodshed. That is why we have tabled the Amendment, and I regret that the Government cannot accept it.

9.10 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: Although the Government do not intend to interfere with the marriage customs of India, power will be given to Provincial Legislatures to alter the marriage laws. There is plenty of room for reform in the marriage laws of India, but you do not want to create a series of States in India like you have in the United States, where marriages and divorce can be obtained easier than anywhere else, and thus create centres such as we know under the name of Reno, where those who wish to be divorced can obtain what they desire for a very small fee. In most civilised countries it is only the central legislature which has authority to deal with matters appertaining to marriage and divorce, and the same principle should hold for India.

9.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: The hon. Member for the English Universities

(Sir R. Craddock) has dealt with the position of the Hindus. I should like to say a few words about Islam. Many years ago I was assessor in the Madras Divorce Court, and I sat with the imam hearing cases. Therefore, I have some knowledge of the marriage and divorce laws of Islam. I was astonished to hear the Attorney-General say that these are domestic matters. They are not domestic matters; they are purely religious matters. The religious ceremony and divorce laws of Islam are fixed and immutable, not only in India but throughout the East. It is important, therefore, that we should regard this as a Federal subject, not as a local subject. I was even more surprised when the Attorney-General talked about the western mind. We have only to go to Scotland to see the trouble caused by two different marriage laws. The scandal of Gretna Green rang from one end of the country to another, and we had to pass a special law to prevent such marriages being performed. If that can occur in this country, what may occur when you have 11 provincial governments legislating for three, four and more religions. It is an impossible situation. If you are going to put this in the Bill, you cannot limit it to minor matters. If they have the right they will carry it out; and there is nothing more likely to create trouble and bloodshed than to interfere with the marriage laws of the various peoples of India. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and leave this as a Federal subject. If you want a divorce in Ireland, you have to have an Act of Parliament passed in this House. If we have made these mistakes in this country what mistakes are likely to be made in India? This is a matter on which India is extremely nervous. It is like putting a lighted match to gunpowder to interfere with religions in India. There is nothing which stirs up trouble more quickly than to interfere with the marriage laws of the people.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 210.

Division No. 181.]
AYES.
[9.22 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bracken, Brendan
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Davison, Sir William Henry


Atholl, Duchess of
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ersklne-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pike, Cecil F.
Wells, Sidney Richard


Greene, William P. C.
Purbrick, R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hales, Harold K.
Remer, John R.
Wise, Alfred R.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wragg, Herbert


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Moreing, Adrian C.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'Wick-on-T.)
Mr. Raikes and Mr. Emmott.


NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Goff, Sir Park
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Albery, Irving James
Goldie, Noel B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Paling, Wilfred


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Patrick, Colin M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Peake, Osbert


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Potter, John


Bernays, Robert
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Blindell, James
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bossom, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenning t'n)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Rea, Walter Russell


Brass, Captain Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Brocklehank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rickards, George William


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Robinson, John Roland


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hicks, Ernest George
Ropner, Colonel L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Burghley, Lord
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Butler, Richard Austen
Hopkinson, Austin
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hornby, Frank
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Show, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Jamieson, Douglas
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Christie, James Archibald
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Clarry, Reginald George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cleary, J. J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Spens, William Patrick


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Stones, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Strauss, Edward A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Law, Sir Alfred
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lawson, John James
Sugden, Sir wilfrid Hart


Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Leckle, J. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Copeland, Ida
Lees-Jones, John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thorn, William James


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cross, R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Crossley, A. C.
Lunn, William
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Daggar, George
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)


Davies, Rhys, John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Dickle, John P.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)



Dobble, William
Magnay, Thomas
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Mainwaring, William Henry
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dunglass, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Eastwood, John Francis
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
White, Henry Graham


Edwards, Charles
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Milner, Major James
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres



Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Munro, Patrick

9.28 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 293, line 24, to leave out "and" and to insert:
(but not including the use of His Majestys naval, military or air forces in laid of the civil power).
This is an Amendment consequential on one passed earlier on the first paragraph in the Seventh Schedule. I think I explained this Amendment at that time.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 293, line 26, at the end, to insert:
preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of public order; persons subjected to such detention.
This is a drafting Amendment to put an item at present contained in paragraph 4 of List II into the first paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page line 34, leave out from "institutions" to the end of paragraph.—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.31 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT: I beg to move, in page 294, line 8, to leave out paragraph 9.
This paragraph deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, and this Amendment is preparatory to an Amendment the effect of which would be to place the subject of the compulsory acquisition of land on the Concurrent List. We think that this is a subject upon which both the Federal and the Provincial Legislatures should be able to legislate. We think, for instance, that there might have to be a uniform code which would be operative throughout India, dealing with this subject, and corresponding to our own Lands Clauses Act. This code would be laid down by Federal law, while it would be for the Provincial Legislatures to determine the manner in which and the extent to which Provincial Acts should incorporate the Federal code. It is also conceivable that land might have to be acquired for Federal purposes, many of which readily suggest themselves to the mind. There is, for instance, the case of the railways. If it were necessary for land to be acquired for Federal purposes, then Federal law should govern this
matter. As the thing stands at present, with the subject of the compulsory acquisition of land in the Provincial List, the Federal Legislature will have no power to deal with this topic.

9.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The object of this Amendment is to remove this matter from the Provincial List and to put it in the Concurrent List. The entry as in the Bill is intended to continue the existing procedure under the India Land Acquisition Act. It is clear that all the administrative and executive actions connected with the acquisition of land must be dealt with by the Provinces. They are the people with the officers on the spot, and it will be within the Provinces that the land exists. If the Committee will look at Clause 126, they will see that provision is made for the acquisition of land for Federal purposes. It enables the Federation to put into operation the Provincial machinery in order that land may be acquired for Federal purposes. As the executive authority in relation to this subject must be with the Provinces it hardly is right that the whole matter should be dealt with Federally. After all, we are dealing with Provinces that are very large units, and in the event of the acquisition of land it is a perfectly proper matter to call them in, and we have safeguarded the position of the Federation by enabling it to put into operation through the Provinces the machinery which will exist. We recommend the Committee to leave the matter as it is in the Bill, and for these reasons we cannot accept these Amendments.

9.37 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: Clearly there may be other bodies than the Federation which may require to acquire land in more than one Province, and although Clause 126 protects the Federation that wants to acquire land for a railway in more than one Province, it does not cover any other body, corporate or otherwise, which might want to acquire land in more than one Province. These Provinces all have boundaries. That seems to me a very strong argument for the Amendment. I think it would be a great convenience, in all cases where land was in the neighbourhood of a boundary, for the people who wish to acquire the land to know what the general law is with regard to
the acquisition of land, although the administration of the law would be in the hands of the Provinces.

9.38 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Suppose it was desired that the Federal Legislature should pass an Act giving a corporation power to acquire land compulsorily, would that case be met by Clause 126, or would the inclusion of this paragraph in List 2, make it impossible for the Federation to pass any Act which would give a corporation or other body of persons power to acquire land compulsorily in the way in which many corporations are given power in this country to acquire land for the purpose of development? If so, there should be some provision by which the Federal Legislature, for instance, legislating on railways or aerodromes, could give a corporation power compulsorily to acquire land. A Federal Act would become ineffective if there had to be a Provincial Act in each Province implementing the powers given by the Federal Act so far as the compulsory acquisition of land was concerned.

9.40 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), a corporation which desired to acquire land in more than one Province would have to proceed under the Provincial laws in each Province, and in our opinion that is right. We regard this question of the compulsory acquisition of land as one which, as it has to be dealt with administratively by the Provincial Executive, is one in which they should have power to legislate. We see no reason to contemplate any wide or embarrassing lack of uniformity in matters of this kind. The corporation which acquired land compulsorily in two Provinces would have to conform to the machinery for the compulsory acquisition which was involved in those two Provinces. No great difficulty would result. Clearly there would have to be two proceedings in any case. My hon. Friend referred to the boundaries of Provinces. Of course boundaries in any legislative or administrative unit do cause some trouble. If the whole world were one for all purposes, many of our difficulties would disappear. Difficulties are inevitable in any scheme. If there was a piece of land to be acquired, part in Province A and part in Province B, part of it would be acquired under the
law in Province A and part of it under the law in Province B.
With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), in the Bill as it stands, for the reason I have given, compulsory acquisition of land is a Provincial subject, subject to Clause 126. My hon. and learned Friend referred to railways which, broadly speaking, are a Federal subject; there is a large area of Federal legislative authority in respect of railways. I think I am right in saying that land acquired for Federal railway purposes would be land acquired for the purpose of the Federation. If the hon. and learned Member will look at Clause 126 he will see that the purposes of the Federal Railway Authority are expressly mentioned. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a more general point which is certainly one of importance. He asked whether, in relation to the development of some industry, the Federal Government could confer compulsory powers on corporations, overriding any Provincial law on that matter. I shall certainly look into the question. My first impression is to answer "No." The compulsory acquisition of land being expressly referred to as a Provincial matter, the Federal Legislature, under its general powers to deal with the development of industries, could not impinge upon or contradict any legislation dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land which may exist in the Provinces, and such matter would have to be a matter of negotiation and so on with the Provinces.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Let me ask one further question. Would it not also be impossible for the Provincial Legislature to give powers for compulsory acquisition because they have not the power to legislate on the broad subject? Take the case of aerodromes. A company desires to develop air services through India. The Provincial Legislature under paragraph 9, could not give authority for aerodromes to a company because they have no power to legislate with regard to aerodromes, and the Federal Government could not give authority because they have no power to legislate as regards the compulsory acquisition of land. Therefore in that case the result would be that neither could give the power for the compulsory acquisition of land for aerodromes, or any subject-matter which came within the
Federal list, because it would be excluded from the power of legislation in the Province.

9.45 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I wish to direct the attention of the Solicitor-General to the wording of Clause 126 which appears to have a limiting effect. It refers specifically to "purposes of the Federal railway authority" and therefore it would appear that any other authority which wanted to acquire land might be debarred because that particular authority has been mentioned.

9.46 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL:: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend opposite I would point out that earlier in the day the Committee accepted an Amendment making the provision of aerodromes expressly a federal subject and I think that probably that would give them an over-riding power in regard to the matters referred to. When my hon. and learned Friend was speaking earlier I thought he was referring to the general question and my previous answer dealt only with the general question. I think that answer is probably the right answer and indicates the right position to take up in this matter. If the legislature is to develop some industry on particular lines, it ought to have the power to acquire land compulsorily. I think that would necessarily be incidental to its general power to deal with and regulate the development of industry. As regards aerodromes, there is the further answer that air transport is a subject which according to the decision already made by the Committee can be taken under the direct control of the Federation. I shall certainly undertake to look into the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend opposite and also into the point raised by the Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). I agree that it would not be the result which is intended if the Federal Legislature, having received exclusive power to deal with the provision of aerodromes, were left incapable of seing that aerodromes were provided except at the mercy of some Provincial Legislature.

9.49 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I confess to feeling rather mystified. Surely the words in Clause 126, "for the purposes of the
Federation," can have no other meaning than that of any purpose in respect of which the Federation has exclusive power to legislate. I do not know what other meaning they can have. I hope that the Government will look into this question before the Report stage and consider whether the Clause should be drawn—if it is not already so drawn—in such a way as to cover all purposes for which the Federal Government has exclusive powers of legislation.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I wish to mention another example which appears on the Concurrent List. The other examples quoted so far have not been on the Concurrent List. A company might be formed for the generation of electricity at a waterfall and for the development of a large hydro-electric undertaking. The area of consumption might be remote from the place of generation. A case might arise in which electricity was being generated in one Province and consumed largely in other Provinces. The words "compulsory acquisition of land" would include, I imagine, not merely land acquired for the actual generating works and sub-stations, but also wayleaves, and, as far as I know, wayleaves are not mentioned in any of the lists. They are associated with the compulsory acquisition of land—in other words the compulsory acquisition of the right to put up posts and run cables across land on suitable terms. I do not see how, if compulsory acquisition of land is to be a purely provincial subject, a private enterprise which obtained a charter from the Federal Government for an inter-provincial electricity scheme would be able to function should some Province see fit to refuse the necessary legislative power in connection with land and wayleaves.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) interprets Clause 126 as meaning anything in connection with which the Federation had the exclusive power to legislate. I should have thought that, for instance, "for the purposes of the Government of the United Kingdom," to use an analogy, would refer to land which His Majesty's Government required for the purposes of the Government. It would be an entirely different thing if a citizen or a corporate body wished to acquire the land. Would the words "for the purposes of the Federation"
be interpreted as meaning "for the purposes of the Federal Government of India," that is to say, for the purposes of all the inhabitants of Federal India? Would the Noble Lord interpret those words as including anything which affected the inhabitants of Federal India? That would bring in any person, in any Province, who, in respect of any particular matter, looked to the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature. If it does not mean that, then it must mean something less than that. The Noble Lord's point is that these words refer to anything in respect of which the Legislature can pass an Act of Parliament. Therefore that would mean that any citizen or citizens of Federal India in respect of whom an Act of Parliament had been passed, authorising them to do something which required the compulsory acquisition of land, could go to the Federal Government and say, "Please instruct this Province accordingly." If it does not mean that, I do not know what it means. However, we have the two Law Officers here and they will doubtless tell us precisely what these words do mean. I think if I were a lawyer I might earn a good deal of money in trying to explain this matter to judges and it would probably have to be explained to more than one set of judges before a final decision was reached.

9.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a point of importance and it may be that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is a little too sweeping and that I was a little too cautious. If those responsible for this Amendment will be satisfied with an assurance to that effect, we will undertake to look into this matter. I think the words in Clause 126 do certainly cover this—that the Federation by the form of its law, might make it clear that it was conferring the power to acquire land for Federation purposes. A scheme might be such that, by its very nature, it would bring the activities of those to whom it referred within the wording "for the purposes of the Federation." On the other hand, there may be something in the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that the purposes of the Federation can be construed as Government purposes in the absence of some express words in the enactment. Without infringing on the main principle
that the compulsory acquisition of land should be a provincial subject, we will look into the question of whether any undertaking for dealing with electricity or other matters which might appropriately come under Federal control, would be embarrassed by the absence of any express reference to the power of acquiring land.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does not the word "Federation" before the words "including purposes of the Federal Railway Authority" make it clear that they mean in the first place "Government purposes," that as there would be some doubt whether "Government purposes" included the Federal Rail way Authority those words were put in?

Sir B. PETO: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to consider with an open mind whether it is not desired to do precisely what the Amendment asks?

Mr. EMMOTT: In view of the undertaking given by the learned Solicitor-General to look into this important point, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 294, line 11, leave out paragraph 11, and insert:
11. Elections to the Provincial Legislature subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council made there-under."—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.57 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 294, line 18, to leave out "Public health and sanitation."
This is moved as one of a number of Amendments intended to make public health purely a Federal service, but we have passed that stage, and on this Amendment we can only suggest that it should come into the Concurrent List. Not having visited India, I am not as expert on this subject as some others are, but it seems to me that public health in the wide sense is not something which has any knowledge of Provincial boundaries. If you have outbursts of any kind of epidemic diseases, which in hot countries may become much more serious than in temperate countries, it seems to me that you must have a wider view of the subject than merely a narrow, Provincial view. That an outburst of bubonic plague, which too often has inflicted great suffering and misery on the inhabitants of India, should be handled by Provincial
Governments, each working separately, introduces very great dangers to the public health. There are other problems of public health arising, such as water supply and sanitation, problems of curious complexity in a country where—I say it with all respect—the habits of the people are such that sanitation and water supply are not as easily dealt with as in this country or, in fact, in most European countries. Some of the great rivers of India, which only too unfortunately perform the function of public sewers to a much greater extent than we should regard as desirable, traverse more than one Province. Therefore, there is a very substantial body of arguments in favour of the Amendment.
I realise that there is an argument on the other side, and that a great many of the problems of public health are purely localised as the day-to-day work of a medical officer and a sanitary inspector, such as we are all familiar with in this country. The clearance of house refuse and all that kind of work is essentially localised, but there are wider and larger problems of public health, which, if they are to be handled properly, should be dealt with, to use an Americanism, on a country-wide basis. It is, I think, with that in view that my hon. Friends and myself have tabled this Amendment. Possibly those who were responsible for drafting it had in mind primarily—I added my name because I was in accord with the general principle—that on balance public health should be a Federal service.
Personally, I am a little inclined to think that the Concurrent List, where alone we can now seek to place it, is perhaps the better place for it, because it is obvious that certain aspects of public health are exclusively local. On the other hand, the other aspects to which I have referred, such as epidemic disease, plague, the movement of insects, agricultural diseases, and things like that, are nation-wide and, therefore, should be Federal subjects. If public health can be put on the Concurrent List, it will enable the Federation to deal with those aspects of public health where the problem knows no frontiers, and equally it will enable the Provincial Governments to deal with those aspects of public health which are very much more local in their character.

10.2 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I want to give one instance of the necessity for considering public health and sanitation as at least as important a Federal subject as a Provincial subject, and that is the pilgrimages in India. As is well known, there are pilgrimages of Hindus from all over India to Hardwar and Allahabad in the United Provinces and to Nassik in Bombay. These pilgrims arriving at the place of pilgrimage and returning to their various residences all over India are a very frequent cause of the spread of infection, and it seems very important that this should be kept an all-India subject, or at any rate on the Concurrent List, so as to enable the spread of infection to be dealt with expeditiously and properly. I wonder how long it would have taken the Provincial Governments in India more or less to stamp out the plague if they had not had the guidance of the Central Government in India.

10.3 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I feel it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment. India is a land of devastating epidemics, a land in which plague has taken a toll of 46,000 people in the last year for which the figures are available, namely, 1932. In that year cholera in India accounted for 67,200 deaths, the lowest figure, we are told, yet on record. From smallpox the toll was no less than 114,691, and we are told by the Health Commissioner of the Government of India in his latest report, from which I have quoted these figures, that India is the chief epidemic focus for smallpox in the world. The control of an epidemic must depend largely on sanitation, and that is especially true in regard to cholera. The prevention of cholera depends very largely on efficient drainage and pure water supply, hut, as we know, the service of public health, including, of course, sanitation, was handed over to Provincial Ministers in 1921, and as such it appears in the Bill. But in regard to this the commissioner for health has a very sad tale to tell. He tells us that very little progress has been recorded in India in regard to sanitation. He goes on to say that recent sweeping reductions in expenditure even on such primary necessities as water supplies and drainage schemes are all indications of the false economy
which has prevailed in the last two years. India has had to cut down her services as we in this country have had to do. But she has cut down things which the health commissioner rightly says are primary necessities. He states as a general opinion that no Provincial Health Department in India had even the minimum requirements necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. That is what the health commissioner of the Government of India says about sanitation and public health generally in the 14 or 15 years in which it has been a provincial subject.

Earl WINTERTON: Surely the Noble Lady is not arguing that the lack of money is a fault?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not think that I gave my Noble Friend any occasion to say that. I did not enter into the question of finance except to refer to the retrenchment that has taken place. I have here an extract from a letter from an ex-inspector general of public health for the United Provinces in which he says that it is notorious that the standard of public health has deteriorated to an alarming extent since the introduction of the reforms. As a result, this ex inspector-general of public health and the government to which he was responsible asked for the Government of India to have greater powers in regard to public health. The United Provinces asked the Simon Commission for an All-India Public Health Act because they felt that it would be impossible otherwise to cope with the spread of infection from one Province to another. I recognise that the Government wish to give some powers in this matter to the Federal Government. We find in the Concurrent List that there is an item, No. 29, by which both Federal and Provincial Governments will have power for the prevention of the extension from one unit to another of infectious or contagious diseases; but I submit that the efforts of the Federal Government to prevent the extension of infection from one Province to another may be vitiated if the machinery in one of those Provinces for dealing with an epidemic is defective. It thus seems to me that it is necessary to give the Federal Government more power than is proposed in Item 29.
I would just instance as strengthening my argument the fact that to-day the
Central Government has powers in this matter of public health. On page 128 of Volume I of the Simon Commission's Report we find that the Provinces have powers over public health and sanitation and vital statistics, but subject to legislation by the Indian Legislature in respect to infectious and contagious diseases to such extent as may be declared by any Act of the Indian Legislature. That wording is much wider than the wording of Item 29 in the Concurrent List. The proposal in the Bill is a limitation of existing powers of the Government of India for dealing with an epidemic. I am told that in spite of pressure from many public health officials and some Provincial Governments they have taken much less action than it was hoped they might take and which it was open for them to take. I have been told of schemes which have been put forward by Provincial Governments for the Government of India to take action in regard to public health, schemes supported by some Provinces, but which could not be put into operation unless they had the consent of all the Provinces and the railway authorities, and because they could not get the agreement of all the Provinces and the railway authorities they have had to be pigeon-holed. That is really a very serious matter, because epidemics know no limits of frontiers. With the powers it already had the Government of India has failed to do all that lay within its power to stem epidemics. Following on the recommendation of the United Provinces Government to the Simon Commission that the Government of India should exercise greater powers and legislate for public health throughout British India the Simon Commission recommended that the Government of India should exercise powers in this matter. On page 152 of their Second Volume they said that they wished to ensure co-operation between the various Provinces in matters of administration which, though not central subjects, may be of vital concern to more than one Province, or to India as a whole. For that purpose, they wished the Central Government to have powers over the Provincial Governments. They go on to say:
We may recite as examples measures for fighting famine or epidemic diseases.
I submit that again that wording is much broader wording than:
The extension from one unit to another of infectious or contagious diseases.
So that again the wording in the Bill falls short of what was recommended by the Simon Commission. I repeat that the most admirable measures proposed by the Central Government for preventing the extension of an epidemic from one Province to another may be rendered useless if the provincial administration is ineffective and has the Federal Government, under the proposals of the Bill, a better chance of getting agreement between all the Provinces than the present Government of India? After all, the Legislatures to-day, both central and provincial, include a certain number of nominated officials anxious to help forward Government measures, and men who know the value of efficient public health measures. Will it be easier for a Federal Legislature, which must be controlled by one communal majority, to get the agreement of Provincial Legislatures and of Provincial Governments controlled by other communal majorities, will it be easier to secure co-operation among those legislatures than it is to-day? It seems to me that it will be much more difficult to get uniform public health legislation all over India under the arrangement proposed than it is at present.
If we are really to have an efficient public health service in India, there ought to be some means of providing for more or less uniform qualifications for public health officers. There again a wide diversity exists. I do not know if hon. Members saw a letter in the "Times" from an ex-director-general of public health in the United Provinces. He referred to this matter of qualifications for public health officers, and said that in some cases the standard was lower since the service was transferred, and that some men who had no qualifications were becoming public health officers. It seems very desirable that there should be some central authority to prescribe that there should be a certain number of public health officials per head of the population, but there is no power to-day to ensure anything of that kind, or to ensure uniform or reasonably efficient standards. It is worth while remembering that in South Africa and Australia, where there are Federal Governments, powers of this kind have been conferred on the Central
Government, and yet neither of those countries has anything like the epidemic problem that India has. For lack of effective central control India is actually the only civilised country which has not practically eliminated plague, cholera and smallpox. It has been impressed upon me that it is not possible to deal effectively with them without central control.
But public health in India is not limited to epidemic diseases. It also includes the important question of child welfare and child and maternal mortality. Do we realise that the maternal mortality in India is over six times as high as in Great Britain? We are concerned because we cannot get the figures lower in Great Britain, but, according to the Health Commissioner's latest report, the maternal death rate figures in India are six times as great as ours. According also to this report, child welfare work "is pitifully small and shows little tendency to increase." No serious attempts, the Commissioner says, have been made to estimate the causes of the higher infant mortality rate in India. "Preventive work among children is not regarded as a necessity, and is dispensed with as a luxury." That shows the need for more central authority, with a very experienced officer to advise it, which can stimulate the provincial governments in this very important matter. This subject will not be touched at all by paragraph 29, which will refer only to epidemic disease. Then, again, how are the Provinces to have intelligence as to maternal mortality, infant mortality and epidemic disease if there is no power in the central authority except that which is proposed? Surely there is great need for information to be given to the provincial Governments by some central authority. It is important, too, that inquiries should be held into the many health problems which concern India.
Tuberculosis is another great problem in India. I do not think it would come within the scope of item 29 in the Concurrent List. I am not sure whether it could be described exactly as an infectious or contagious disease. It is notifiable in this country, but it does not seem to be quite in the same category as other epidemic diseases. I know that it is contagious, but it is not an epidemic disease; at any rate it seems to me that it is in a slightly different category. That is another case where action by the
central Government may be absolutely vitiated if no measures for dealing with the disease are taken in the Provinces. It is not a disease which spreads so rapidly from one province to another. In dealing with it much depends on the hygienic arrangements which will have to be made by the Provinces. Deaths from tuberculosis in India are estimated to be from three to sixteen times the mortality in this country. There are apparently no reliable statistics, but the estimates range within those figures, and it is said that for every death there are ten infected persons. In this report the need is stressed for organised efforts to combat this terrible disease.
Finally, there is malaria. It has been said to me by the officer whom I have already quoted that 130,000,000 people in India have attacks of malaria which keep them from their work for about six weeks in the year, and that about 90 per cent. of those people can get no quinine, on account of the cost. In malaria we have a terrible scourge. Will it be possible for malaria to be dealt with under item 29? Here, again, we cannot exaggerate the importance of combined efforts to grapple with this scourge. Local treatment is very necessary for the prevention of malaria, but it is clear that the item in the Concurrent List leaves out a large block of public health work in India affecting women and children. It is clear, also, that we cannot hope to deal effectively with epidemic diseases if the Federal Government cannot be sure that the conditions which bring about those diseases or accentuate them will really be coped with effectually. I support the Amendment and earnestly beg the Government to give it careful consideration.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER: I am sure the Committee will realise the importance of this discussion, and sympathise with me if I do not cover the previous discussions we have had on the relationship of central government to provincial autonomy. We have always said that we in the Government believe in provincial autonomy, and therefore it is not for me to repeat all that has been said about the relationship of the powers of the Provinces to the powers of the Centre. The future of India must be built up on units which are really autonomous. Our service to provincial
autonomy is not mere lip-service; we realise its deep implications.
I am glad that the Noble Lady has taken part in this Debate because she, as much as any other Member of the Committee, has made a profound study of this subject. She has all along shown how seriously she considers it. We also have done our best to make a profound study of it. I have here many statistics showing the serious nature of the ravages of disease in India, the present condition of the public health and so forth. I would say nothing which would imply that the condition of the public health service is perfect, or not open to improvement all over India. I can assure the Noble Lady that this subject has given my right hon. Friend and myself, and other Members of the Government, much anxiety, and that any action which can be taken to improve it would meet with our approval.
We now have to consider the future of India under the Federal Scheme which we propose. The Noble Lady's remarks were in the first place directed to preventing serious epidemic disease from ravaging India, and she referred in particular to the recommendation of the Statutory Commission which was that there shall be opportunities for further co-ordination between the Provinces with a view to enforcing
measures for fighting famine or epidemic diseases (whether among men, animals or crops).
I am advised that that is precisely the object of our inserting in the concurrent list Item 29, which reads:
The prevention of the extension from one unit to another of infectious or contagious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants.
Those are exactly the same words as in the recommendation of the Statutory Committee. In reply to the anxiety which the Noble Lady expressed, let me assure her that I am advised that the legislative content of Item 29 is exactly similar to what was recommended by the Statutory Commission.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I point out that the Statutory Commission in paragraph 182 of their Report say:
We recommend that the superintendence, direction, and control of the Governor-General in Council over a Provincial Government
should be exercisable only over a field defined by the following categories"—
and one of them is—
matters which may, in the opinion of the Governor-General essentially affect the interests of any other part of India.
Then they say in paragraph 184:
Measures for fighting famine or epidemic diseases (whether among men, animals or crops).

Mr. BUTLER: I must take the Noble Lady's intervention as an opportunity to give the Committee some words on the subject. The Committee ought to look into this and to see whether the legislative content is suitable, or whether certain items should be in the Provincial or the Federal List. I have informed the Noble Lady that our legal advice here and from various parts of India is that the content of this Item is exactly the equivalent of what she desires. I can do no more to help the Committee and her than to give her that assurance, and if the Noble Lady does not accept it, I am afraid that the extent of the help I can give her is limited to the previous remarks I have made.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My hon. Friend has said, although perhaps indavertently, that the words in the Concurrent List are what I desire. He means, of course, that they were what the Simon Commission recommended.

Mr. BUTLER: Yes. As far as we can secure, and according to my advice—I stand liable to correction by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—they have exactly the same content as that which was proposed by the Statutory Commission. The object of them is to secure co-ordination in these vital matters of infectious or contagious disease which may affect one Province or another. This deals with the difficulty raised by the Noble Lady as to disease which might cross the boundaries between one Province and another. Disease is no respecter of Provincial boundaries. As far as that difficulty is concerned, the Noble Lady's troubles are, I think, met by what is here proposed. We want to carry out the opinion of the Statutory Commission that this subject of public health or sanitation should not be taken away from the provincial government. This has been a provincial subject ever since the reforms were introduced over 12 years ago, and, for reasons which I
will try to give to the Committee, must remain essentially a provincial subject. The differences between the Provinces as regards the incidence of disease follow, unfortunately, provincial idiosyncrasies. The registration of infectious diseases may have to be enforced in a different way in one Province from that in which it is enforced in another. It would be very difficult, in the case of any particular disease which ravaged one particular Province, for the Federal Legislature to pass a law which necessarily suited that Province.
The Noble Lady mentioned malaria, the greatest scourge of our Indian Empire, and a matter which I think the Noble Lady is right in saying might best be dealt with by further and better supplies of quinine. That, however, is an administrative question, and I should be out of Order in referring to it here. Let me remind the Noble Lady that the manner of dealing with malaria in Bengal may be radically different from the manner of dealing with it in, say, the Punjab, and I am advised by our experts that it would not be conducive to the extinction of malaria if we were to insist upon regulation by a central Act of the provincial treatment of malaria in different parts of India. Moreover, to refer to my previous remarks about provincial autonomy, it seems to me that, in order to eradicate disease and have an efficient public health and sanitary service, it is essential to encourage local effort and provincial autonomy in dealing with these matters. We believe that interference from the Centre would not encourage local effort, but rather would retard it, and that we should be taking away from the locality the necessary stimulus to deal with its own particular problems. Moreover, these public health matters depend essentially upon provincial finance, and as it is from that source that they will be financed, it therefore seems to us right that they should be under provincial control.
The Noble Lady referred to the problem of intelligence. It will be possible, under an item of the Federal list, for institutions for research to be governed from the Centre. That matter could be governed by Federal legislation. But I think the best hope for the Noble Lady is that the Government consider that the most fruitful course to pursue in dealing with these problems is that of the co-ordination of
policy as between the Centre and the units. We are, as I have told the Committee, dealing with a Federation, and I think I am safe in saying that in no Federation has the problem of health development been solved by coercion from the Centre, but always by development of the unit. The Noble Lady quoted Australia, and, as I felt sure that this would be mentioned in the Debate, I attempted to arm myself with information as to the development of public health in Australia. The development of public health in Australia arose out of the appointment of the Royal Commission in 1926, and it may be said that, as a result of that, further co-ordination between the different States of Australia has taken place, and has finally resulted in the establishment of an Australian Health Council and latterly, I am glad to say, of an actual Department of Health in Australia. That has been arrived at entirely by the process of co-ordination and co-operation between the units, and not by any artificial control from the Centre. In India we envisage that the future will follow very much the same lines, or rather, I may be permitted to hope so.

Sir A. KNOX: How many people will have died in the meantime?

Mr. BUTLER: Under Clause 133 we have included the opportunity for the provinces to set up an inter-provincial council. It is our earnest hope that, under the provisions of that Clause, it will be possible for an inter-provincial council to be set up, and I devoutly hope that further co-ordination in health policy may result. Like the Noble Lady, I have had the privilege of discussing this matter with Major-General Graham and others who have been connected with public health in India, and I believe it is their opinion that the best way to develop public health under the future Federation will be by agreement between the units and by co-ordination and getting together, rather than by any sort of coercion. The Noble Lady may ask how, when this Council is set up, it will be possible for the Federation to legislate and implement the finding of any inter-provincial Council? If she will refer to Clause 103 she will see that the Federal Legislature will have power to legislate for two or three Provinces by consent. I am advised that under that Clause it
would be possible in the distant or in the near future, as the case may be, for a Public Health Act to be passed for India. But at the present moment I am advised that there are such distinct provincial idiosyncrasies and difficulties that future Public Health Acts must depend in the first place upon the Provinces getting together. We all hope that there will be developed a more powerful central bureau for health in India and that health policy will develop along the lines which the Noble Lady desires, but we feel to-day that the wise and proper course is to let this depend upon co-operation rather than upon coercion. I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We have been discussing what, in the Schedule, relates to public health, and I should like to ask whether the representative of the Government will be good enough to answer a question which concerns us greatly on these bencehs. In this country we always regard the National Health Insurance Scheme as part of our national health services. Indeed, it is one of the most important of those services. We have tried on more than one occasion to include some of these services in these lists, but we have failed up to now. Consequently, we shall be pleased if the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it is possible, within the words "public health," to include a piece of legislation which will institute a scheme such as that known in this country as the National Health Insurance Scheme.

Mr. BUTLER: As far as I know, this will be covered by Item 19, which is already in the Concurrent List.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The Under-Secretary has said that the Government wish to increase autonomy in the Provinces. The Provincial Legislatures have autonomy in matters of health, and it is notorious that the health services have deteriorated very considerably under that autonomy. Is it argued that, when the Provinces have autonomy in matters of irrigation and of law and order, and so on, their administration of health services will improve?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Would it be possible for the Federal Government to take any action with regard to Malaria under Item 29 in the Concurrent List.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Malaria may be said to be an infectious disease. The words in the Bill are definitely wider than the words advocated by the Noble Lady. She advocated the word "epidemic." We do not want merely to cover epidemic diseases, but infectious and contagious diseases, and practically all the diseases to which she has referred can be grouped under one or the other. With regard to malaria, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and anybody associated with the Colonial Office know, it is of the utmost importance that you should not have uniformity in the attempt to deal with the preventive services dealing with malaria. It is quite clear that in a rice-producing country you cannot have too much water as a preventive of malaria. Equally, where you have a wheat-producing country what you want is the maximum of drainage. All the preventive measures which have been adopted in connection with these two different crops and two different climates are fundamentally opposed to ridding the country of mosquitoes. In regard to Malaya, where we had a tremendous campaign, there was quite different treatment according to the particular variety of the mosquitoes being dealt with as carriers of malaria. Probably the greatest successes in fighting malaria have been achieved because they have been concentrated efforts in a small limited area. In the Panama Canal zone, in a certain swamp area of Palestine and in the Pontine Marshes the efforts have been conspicuous successes in fighting malaria where you need concentration of the whole population in local areas. Where there has been failure has been where the central government have adopted a sort of mass attack; they have always invariably failed. As one very much interested in the malaria problem for many years I devoutly hope that the Government of India will not try to impose anti-malaria measures upon the Provinces, but will provide for the maximum decentralisation in the interest of science and in the interests of proper administration.

10.43 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I thank my right hon. Friend for the very interesting statement which he has made, but I would ask him whether he is not aware that one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Agriculture was that the
Government of India should control the production, manufacture and distribution of cinchona for manufacture into quinine, in order to make it more available at lower prices for the millions of people who cannot afford to buy it. Therefore, while I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said, with his great knowledge of Colonial affairs, and I realise the importance of concentrated attack in local areas, the fact remains that the Royal Commission recommended that the Central Government should have power to act, and the Central Government proceeded to exercise its powers.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is a very serious question how far quinine can be regarded as a prophylactic and in the attack on malaria and how far it is valuable as a remedy. But that has nothing to do with what I might call preventive medicine and sanitation. We mainly regard quinine as dealing with the curative side. Various efforts have been made in the British Empire to endeavour to grow quinine in competition with Java, but I am afraid that many years and more experience will have to be gained before we shall find any part of the world so ideally situated to grow quinine as the particular area in Java where it is grown. The chief thing that has prevented the various efforts in India and in the Colonial possessions in developing the growth of quinine is that they have failed to grow it cheaper than they can grow it in Java. That is why Java has a monopoly. I do not think that you can blame the administration in India for failure to do what for years British and European officials have failed to do—namely, grow cheaper quinine than is grown in Java. To blame Indian Ministers or the Indian health services is a little unfair.

Duchess of ATHOLL: If the right hon. Gentleman will read official documents showing the effects of the Linlithgow Report he will find that in the first year after its publication the Government of India asked the Provincial Governments what could be done to carry out its recommendations in this respect, but that next year nothing further could be done because of the findings of the Round Table Conference. If the findings of the Conference were implemented the Government of India would lose the power of dealing with this matter.
I made no insinuation against Indian Ministers. The power of the Government of India to deal with this matter was brought to an end by the first Round Table Conference.

HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."

10.47 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I must protest at the haste with which the Committee want to deal with this vital subject. We are debating the health and happiness of 365,000,000 people, and it is to be dismissed after an hour's debate because hon. Members want to go to bed. Every one of our suggestions has been swept aside by the Government, who say that we must concentrate on the autonomy of the Provinces, a point we urged months ago, but these very same people are now ready to abandon the idea so anxious are they that the Central Government shall not have the control of this vital service. Would this Committee, if it had a free hand, put the administration of such vital questions as disease and health into the hands of six or seven different centres, or would it not rather have its central research station where you would get the most experience. We are not following a wise course in this matter. I have taken some interest in the question of tuberculosis and no one would suggest that you should divide the country into England, Scotland and Wales, but rather that there should be a central research department and then allow the localities to further the object in their own districts. You are handing over the government of the Provinces completely to Indians and taking

away from them all the skill of British medicine and science. If there was real vision of the future of India so far as health and happiness were concerned we should say that the people would be better cared for if they were under the control of the Central Government. As I have said, every single suggestion we have made has been swept aside by the Government, although they have been made at the instance of men of great and wide experience of India. One of our principal advisers has given more service to India than all the members of the Joint Select Committee who voted with the majority. The advice we have given in regard to medicine and disease is also to be swept on one side, and yet earlier in the afternoon the Government withdrew a Schedule, and the whole of their faithful supporters voted against their Bill and eliminated two pages from it. I think the time is coming when the people of this country will begin to realise, when we have howls from the Socialist benches that they want a Division after discussing this great question of health for an hour and ten minutes, that we are not treating this great and mighty problem with the seriousness it deserves, and that we are trying to hasten through something which ought to occupy the attention of every Member of this House to a far greater extent than it has done.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 31.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[10.53 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Conant, R. J. E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Copeland, Ida


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cranborne, Viscount


Apsley, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burghley, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Butler, Richard Austen
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Cross, R. H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Crossley, A. C.


Balniel, Lord
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Banfield, John William
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Daggar, George


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Batey, Joseph
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Dobbie, William


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Loofric
Eastwood, John Francis


Bernays, Robert
Christie, James Archibald
Edwards, Charles


Blindell, James
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bossom, A. C.
Cleary, J. J.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Boulton, W. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Colman, N. C. D.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Robinson, John Roland


Fox, Sir Gifford
Logan, David Gilbert
Ropner, Colonel L.


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rothschild, James A. de


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lunn, William
Runge, Norah Cecil


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McEntee, Valentine L.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Goff, Sir Park
McKie, John Hamilton
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Goldie, Noel B.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)


Graves, Marjorie
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Grigg, Sir Edward
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spens, William Patrick


Groves, Thomas E.
Milne, Charles
Stones, James


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Munro, Patrick
Tinker, John Joseph


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
North, Edward T.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Holdsworth, Herbert
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Paling, Wilfred
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Parkinson, John Allen
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Patrick, Colin M.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peake, Osbert
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pearson, William G.
White, Henry Graham


Iveagh, Countess of
Penny, Sir George
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Potter, John



Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Radford, E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Law, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Womersley, Sir Walter


Lawson, John James
Rathbone, Eleanor
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Leckle, J. A.
Rea, Walter Russell



Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Liddall, Walter S.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Major George Davies and Captain


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rickards, George William
Hope.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, William P. C.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hartington, Marquess Of
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Wells, Sydney Richard


Carver, Major William H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wise, Alfred R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Moreing, Adrian C.
Wragg, Herbert


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Nall, Sir Joseph



Davison, Sir William Henry
Perkins, Walter R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Vice-Admiral Taylor and Mr.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Pike, Cecil F.
Raikes.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Remer, John R.



Resolution agreed to.

It being Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for the financial adjustments necessary by reason of the second appointed day
for the purposes of the Unemployment Act, 1934, having been postponed from the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five; and to authorise the borrowing by public assistance authorities of sums required for the purpose of meeting expenditure incurred by them for the year ended on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, in excess of their estimates for that year, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any grants which may become payable under the said Act of the present Session to the councils of counties, county boroughs, and large burghs in respect of the period beginning with the first day of March,
nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and ending with the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, or with the day before the date hereafter appointed as the second appointed day for the purposes of the said Act of 1934, whichever is the earlier, such grants being in the case of any council—

(a) at an annual Tate representing the estimated annual equivalent of the estimated expenditure (including the cost of administration) incurred by the council in connection with the provision in the standard period of relief which they would not have provided if the Unemployment Assistance Board had been entitled throughout that period to take into consideration applications for allowances which they are not entitled under the said Act of 1934 to take into consideration before the said second appointed day;
(b) subject to a deduction equal to the portion of the annual contributions which would, if the said second appointed day had been the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, have been payable by the council under section forty-five of the said Act of 1934 in respect of the period in relation to which the grant is payable; and
1522
(c) subject to such adjustments as may be directed by the Minister of Health or a Secretary of State, in any case where the boundary of a county, county borough, or large burgh has been altered since the thirtieth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-four.

For the purposes of this Resolution the expression 'standard period' means the period beginning with the first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and ending with the twenty-eighth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this house do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.